Established duty of care Foreseeability 1. Duty of care Three-Fold Tests Neighbour Principle under Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) Proximity Bourhill v Young [1943] Reasonableness Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] "Reasonable man" Test Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) 2. Breach of duty Skilled Professionals/Expert Duty Bolam v Friern Hospital (1957) Special standard Children Tort of Negligence 3. Causation "But for" Test Barnett v Chelsea Hospital (1969) "Remoteness" Test Overseas Tankship case (1961) 4. Remoteness Novus Actus Interveniens Test McKew v Holland [1969] 5. Remedies "Thin Skull Rule" Pysical Pain and suffering; Medical expenses; Loss of income; Mental/psychological pain and suffering...
Established duty of care Foreseeability 1. Duty of care Three-Fold Tests Neighbour Principle under Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) Proximity Bourhill v Young [1943] Reasonableness Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] "Reasonable man" Test Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) 2. Breach of duty Skilled Professionals/Expert Duty Bolam v Friern Hospital (1957) Special standard Children Tort of Negligence 3. Causation "But for" Test Barnett v Chelsea Hospital (1969) "Remoteness" Test Overseas Tankship case (1961) 4. Remoteness Novus Actus Interveniens Test McKew v Holland [1969] 5. Remedies "Thin Skull Rule" Pysical Pain and suffering; Medical expenses; Loss of income; Mental/psychological pain and suffering...
Related questions
Question
what is the diferences between duty of care and breach of duty?
![Established duty of care
Foreseeability
1. Duty of care
Three-Fold Tests
Neighbour Principle under Donoghue v
Stevenson (1932)
Proximity
Bourhill v Young [1943]
Reasonableness
Caparo Industries v
Dickman [1990]
"Reasonable man" Test
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856)
2. Breach of duty
Skilled Professionals/Expert Duty
Bolam v Friern Hospital (1957)
Special standard
Children
Tort of Negligence
3. Causation
"But for" Test
Barnett v Chelsea Hospital (1969)
"Remoteness" Test
Overseas Tankship case (1961)
4. Remoteness
Novus Actus Interveniens Test
McKew v Holland [1969]
5. Remedies
"Thin Skull Rule"
Pysical Pain and suffering; Medical expenses; Loss of
income; Mental/psychological pain and suffering...](/v2/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcontent.bartleby.com%2Fqna-images%2Fquestion%2F405a47b2-48e8-4035-8b7a-a714b465a78b%2F64fca55d-7796-4f3e-8dc4-a7fc03b1013d%2Ftrig13q_processed.png&w=3840&q=75)
Transcribed Image Text:Established duty of care
Foreseeability
1. Duty of care
Three-Fold Tests
Neighbour Principle under Donoghue v
Stevenson (1932)
Proximity
Bourhill v Young [1943]
Reasonableness
Caparo Industries v
Dickman [1990]
"Reasonable man" Test
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856)
2. Breach of duty
Skilled Professionals/Expert Duty
Bolam v Friern Hospital (1957)
Special standard
Children
Tort of Negligence
3. Causation
"But for" Test
Barnett v Chelsea Hospital (1969)
"Remoteness" Test
Overseas Tankship case (1961)
4. Remoteness
Novus Actus Interveniens Test
McKew v Holland [1969]
5. Remedies
"Thin Skull Rule"
Pysical Pain and suffering; Medical expenses; Loss of
income; Mental/psychological pain and suffering...
AI-Generated Solution
AI-generated content may present inaccurate or offensive content that does not represent bartleby’s views.
Unlock instant AI solutions
Tap the button
to generate a solution