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 diffeences between established duty of care and special standard?
And what is the differences between neighbour principle (reasonableness) and reasonable man test?
![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%2F18be333e-d137-4450-a7db-145eee09499a%2Fiwzzf9m_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