2B.2.2 Duty of care Flashcards
Four aspects to the Tort of Negligence
1) Duty of care
2) Breach of duty
3) Causation (remoteness)
4) Damages
Automatic duties
Where the D has an automatic duty of care to the V.
- No need to use Caparo Test
Which case established the automatic duty of care?
Robinson
Examples of automatic duty of care (Robinson)
- Solicitor/Client
- Doctor/Patient
- Teacher/Student
- Employer/Employee
- Road users
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
1) Donoghue’s friend bought a ginger beer in an opaque bottle.
2) Donoghue drank some of the ginger beer and then poured it into a glass.
3) She found the decomposed remains of a snail in her drink.
4) She then fell ill with gastroenteritis and suffered psychiatric harm as a result.
The manufacturer was found liable for the tort of negligence because the snail fell into the bottle during manufacturing.
What did Donoghue v Stevenson establish?
The idea of “duty of care” and the “neighbour principle”.
What is a neighbour?
“Anyone who you may potentially injure by your act or omission”.
Caparo Test
The Caparo test is a three-stage test that is used to establish a duty of care in negligence cases.
1) Reasonable foresight of harm to neighbour.
2) Sufficient proximity of relationship.
3) Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.
Which case established the Caparo Test?
- Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990)
Application of the caparo test
Cases for elements of the caparo test
1 - Foresight of harm:
- Case: Kent v Griffiths
2 - Proximity of relationship:
- Case: Bourhill v Young, McLaughlin v O’Brien
3 - Fair, just and reasonable
- Case: Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
[Case - foresight of harm]
Kent v Griffiths
Ambulance service didn’t get patient to hospital in time and the patient suffered harm without a good reason of why.
Reasonable foresight meant duty of care was owed.
[Case - proximity of relationship]
Bourhill v Young
Pregnant woman witnessed the aftermath of a fatal crash. She suffered shock and gave birth to a stillborn.
Held: No proximity as she was a by-stander, not involved in the crash. Has no relationship to V.
McLaughlin v O’Brien
Claimant’s family were involved in a lorry crash and C suffered psychiatric harm despite only seeing the immediate aftermath (not the actual incident).
Held: Proximity because C was affected by the crash (psychiatric harm).
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1990)
C’s daughter was the last victim of the Yorkshire Ripper. They tried to sue the police and argued that if they had caught the killer sooner, then their daughter’s murder would have been prevented. Courts held it was not fair, just or reasonable to impose duty of the police.
Also, for public policy reasons, as Cs would potentially be able to sue the police for any murders or crimes that took place. – Open the floodgates.
What is injury?
Can be physical or psychiatric
