neglignece
Storyboard Text
- Bob had broke his leg previously, but walked to the shop, so he crossed the road when he thought it was safe
- A learner driver was driving over the speed limit around a sharp bend. As both the defendant and claimant didn't see each other the car knocked Bob to the floor.
- It resulted in Bob having a broken arm as well and the case of Donoghue v Stevenson suggested that a duty of care will be owed and the Caparo v Dickman states that a 3 part test is need in a novel situation.
- However, the case of Robinson suggests that when there is already an established duty of care the 3 part test is not needed. The case of nettleship v Western shows that a learner driver is held to the same standard of care as a qualified, experience driver. Thus, the driver does owe Bob a duty of care.
- The thin skull rule states that you must take the claimant as you found them and backed by the case of Smith v Leech Brain. This means that you are held accountable for all the injuries
- Res Ipsa Loquitor states that you are clearly liable for the breach in duty for the relationship between driver and pedestrian.
- Well Bob already had pre existing injuries, so I shouldn't be held accountable for it.
- The probability of harm is very high, as you was going to fast around the bend, therefore you would be unable to see pedestrians crossings, nor would be able to stop quick enough. The seriousness of harm is high due to pre existing injuries and the fact it could be long term. It also is practical and costs nothing to driver more carefully.
Over 30 Million Storyboards Created