2. Duty of care

Question 1

Define ‘duty of care’

Answer 1

The legal duty to take reasonable care not to cause harm to another through acts or omissions

Question 2

What is the order of the cases which developed the test for a duty of care?

Answer 2

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) > Anns v Merton London BC (1977) > Murphy v Brentwood DC (1991) > Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990

Question 3

Briefly outline the facts of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

Answer 3

C drank a bottle of ginger beer

A dead snail was in the bottle and she consequently fell ill

Question 4

What was the legal principle established in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)?

Answer 4

A duty of care is present if there is a sufficiently proximate relationship between C and D

Question 5

Briefly outline the facts of Anns v Merton London BC (1977)

Answer 5

C leased a flat in a block of flats
Cracks started to appear in walls, and floors started to slope
Foundations were not deep enough
Council had the power to inspect the building works but failed to do so

Question 6

What was the legal principle established in Anns v Merton London BC (1977)?

Answer 6

A two-stage test for duty of care:

(1) Sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood?
(2) If yes, are there any considerations which ought to reduce or limit the scope of the duty?

Question 7

Why is the decision in Anns v Merton London BC (1977) controversial?

Answer 7

It was seen as too lenient (i.e. too beneficial to the claimant) – just because someone has a right to do something, it doesn’t necessarily mean they have a duty to do it

Question 8

Briefly outline the facts of Murphy v Brentwood DC (1991)

Answer 8

Builder failed to build proper foundations for a house
D (local authority) failed to recognise the issue
The building became dangerously unstable

Question 9

What was the legal principle in Murphy v Brentwood DC (1991)?

Answer 9

A person who has a right to do something does not have a duty to do it
This judgement overturned the test in Anns

Question 10

Briefly outline the facts of Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990)

Answer 10

C bought shares in a company
D prepared the company’s accounts
C bought the remaining shared and discovered D had negligently prepared the accounts

Question 11

What is the test established in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990)?

Answer 11

(1) C should point to direct or closely analogous precedent
(2) If no precedent exists, the court should apply a tripartite test for duty:
(a) Foreseeability
(b) Proximity
(c) Fairness, justness and reasonableness

Question 12

Which case sets the precedent for duties of care owed by police?

Answer 12

Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police (2015)

Question 13

Briefly outline the facts of Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police (2015)

Answer 13

Victim phones the police to request protection from her historically aggressive ex-boyfriend
Ex-boyfriend came to her house, found her with another man, bit his ear, took the other man home and threatened to come back and kill her
Call went to the wrong police force who left out the threat to kill when passing the call to the correct force
This resulted in a 60-minute response time instead of an immediate response
A second call was received by the police, Michael screamed, and the line went dead
When police arrived, Michael had been beaten by her ex-boyfriend and died from her injuries

Question 14

What is the legal principle established by Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police (2015)?

Answer 14

English law does not impose liability on D for injury or damaged to C’s property or person caused by a third party (Smith v Littlewoods)

Common law does not impose liability for omissions

Question 15

What case established the principle that there is no liability imposed on D for injury or damage to C’s property or person caused by the actions of a third party?

Answer 15

Smith v Littlewoods Organisations Ltd (1987)

Question 16

Briefly outline the facts of Smith v Littlewoods (1987)

Answer 16

D bought a cinema, which they intended to demolish and build a supermarket
Vandals broke in repeatedly and set fire to the cinema, damaging neighbouring properties

Question 17

What are the two exceptions to the principle that there is no liability imposed on D for injury or damage to C’s property or person caused by the actions of a third party?

Answer 17

(1) When D has control over the victim

(2) When there is an assumption of responsibility towards C

Question 18

What case gives precedent for the exception to the principle that there is no liability imposed on D for injury or damage to C’s property or person caused by the actions of a third party, when D has control over the victim?

Answer 18

Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (2000)?

Question 19

Briefly outline the facts of Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (2000)?

Answer 19

Prisoner committed suicide in custody cell

Police knew he was a suicide risk

Question 20

What was the decision in Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2000)?

Answer 20

Police are under a duty to protect prisoners in their care
Novus actus interveniens would deprive the duty of any substance
Police liable

Question 21

What case gives precedent for the exception to the principle that there is no liability imposed on D for injury or damage to C’s property or person caused by the actions of a third party, when there is an assumption of responsibility towards C?

Answer 21

Barrett v Ministry of Defence (1994)

Question 22

Briefly outline the facts of Barrett v Ministry of Defence (1994)

Answer 22

Navy sailor drank so much that he became unconscious

He was put to bed, but choked on his own vomit and died

Question 23

What was the decision in Barrett v Ministry of Defence (1994)?

Answer 23

D liable because he assumed responsibility for victim

D had a duty of care towards victim

Question 24

What case gave precedent of police liability before Michael and Caparo?

Answer 24

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989)

Question 25

Briefly outline the facts of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989)

Answer 25

C’s daughter was the final victim of the Yorkshire Ripper

C claimed that D was liable for her daughter’s death because they were negligent in investigating

Question 26

What was the decision in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989)?

Answer 26

Police not liable:

(1) Death was reasonably foreseeable
(2) There was not a sufficient relationship of proximity – there was no specific risk to the victim and there was a weak proximity between the police and the killer
(3) It would not be fair, just and reasonable to impose duty (public policy reasons)

Question 27

What are the public policy reasons why the police do not owe a duty of care in tort?

Answer 27

(1) A duty of care imposed on the police would have no positive impact on care
(2) A duty of care would result in a detrimentally defensive attitude, leading to an ineffective police force
(3) Police need freedom to allocate resources themselves; a duty of care would call into question police policies
(4) There would result a high volume of claims when people are unhappy with the police, diverting resources from preventing crime to defending themselves in negligence claims

Question 28

Which case applies Hill?

Answer 28

Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police (2008)

Question 29

Briefly outline the facts of Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police (2008)

Answer 29

Smith’s ex-partner repeatedly threatened C, saying he would kill him
C reported this to the police, who failed to take crime reports, take statements, or read the text messages
C’s ex-partner attacked him at home with a hammer, causing brain damage and multiple fractures

Question 30

What was decision of Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police (2008)?

Answer 30

No duty of care owed despite reasonable foreseeability and proximity of all kinds
Not far, just and reasonable to impose duty of care on police

Question 31

When are the three times police will owe a duty of care?

Answer 31

When they create the danger
To witnesses and informants
To their own employees

Question 32

What is the case setting the precedent for police owing a duty of care when they create the danger?

Answer 32

Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire (1985)

Question 33

Briefly outline the facts of Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire (1985)

Answer 33

C was a gun shop owner who was under siege during a riot
Police fired a canister of CS gas into the shop without fire-extinguishing equipment
This resulted in damage to C’s shop

Question 34

What was the decision in Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire (1985)?

Answer 34

D liable because police were negligent in firing the canister without fire-fighting equipment

Question 35

What are the cases setting the precedent for police owing a duty of care to witnesses and informants?

Answer 35

Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police (1997)

An Informer v A Chief Constable (2012)

Question 36

Briefly outline the facts of Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police (1997)

Answer 36

C was the manager of a pub who found out information relating the the identity of the killer of a police offer
C reported this to the police who left documents identifying C in a car
C received threats and suffered psychiatric injury

Question 37

What was the decision in Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police (1997)?

Answer 37

Police liable
D assumed responsibility to deal with the information in an appropriate manner
No policy reasons for there not to be a duty of care

Question 38

Briefly outline the facts of An Informer v A Chief Constable (2012)

Answer 38

C was a police informant on a business associate
Police divulged C’s status to the investigating team
C suffered economic loss and psychiatric injury

Question 39

What was the decision in An Informer v A Chief Constable (2012)?

Answer 39

Police owe a duty of care with regard to an informant’s physical well-being, but not financial

Question 40

What are the cases setting the precedent for police owing a duty of care to their own employees?

Answer 40

Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police (1998)

Question 41

Briefly outline the facts of Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police (1998)

Answer 41

C attacked by prisoner when taking him to a cell

Police Inspector accompanying her did nothing to assist

Question 42

What was the principle established in Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police (1998)?

Answer 42

Police have a duty of care to each other

Question 43

Briefly outline the facts of Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands (2001)

Answer 43

C attempted to (unlawfully) arrest a suspect
Suspect assaulted C, leaving him with lifelong injuries
Other police officers negligently failed to come to his assistance

Question 44

What was the decision in Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands (2001)?

Answer 44

D liable

Police forces have a duty of care to their officers

Question 45

What is the case setting the precedent for fire brigade liability?

Answer 45

Capital & Counties v Hampshire CC (1997)

Question 46

What is the precedent for fire brigade liability?

Answer 46

The fire brigade do not owe a duty of care, unless their actions cause or worsen the damage

Question 47

Briefly outline the facts of Capital & Counties v Hampshire CC (1997)

Answer 47

Fire broke out in C’s building
Fire brigade arrived and turned off the sprinkler system
Fire spread to two further blocks, which it wouldn’t have done if the fire brigade had left the sprinkler system on

Question 48

What was the decision in Capital & Counties v Hampshire CC (1997)?

Answer 48

The fire brigade was liable for the damage because their actions increased the damage

Question 49

What is the precedent for coastguard liability?

Answer 49

The coastguard does not owe a duty of care to those who require assistance, unless they actively make the situation worse

Question 50

What is the case setting the precedent for coastguard liability?

Answer 50

OLL v Secretary of State for Transport (1997)

Question 51

Briefly outline the facts of OLL v Secretary of State for Transport (1997)

Answer 51

Group of schoolchildren canoeing encountered difficulties

Coastguard failed to respond in an adequate period of time

Question 52

What is the precedent for ambulance service liability

Answer 52

The ambulance service owes a duty of care to patients in the same way that the rest of the health service do

Question 53

What is the case that sets the precedent for ambulance service liability?

Answer 53

Kent v Griffiths (2000)

Question 54

Briefly outline the facts of Kent v Griffiths (2000)

Answer 54

C’s doctor called 999 when C suffered an asthma attack
Ambulance took 40 minutes to arrive
Patient suffered respiratory arrest