Chapter 2 - Negligence and Duty of Care Flashcards
Definition of Negligence given on the case law? by who? what was the case about?
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co [1856] Alderson B - demonstrates that a public authority owes a duty in relation to those using their services.
Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.”
Liability in negligence - case law and who? 2 case laws
Greer LJ Haynes v Harwood (1935)
Lord Russell in Bourhill v Young [1943] said:
“A man is not liable for negligence in the air. The liability only arises where there is a duty to take care and where failure in that duty has caused damage”
The role of duty of care - definition by who and which case? two cases
Denning MR said in Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1972]
At bottom I think the question …is one of policy. Whenever the courts draw a line to mark out the bounds of duty, they do it as a matter of policy so as to limit the responsibility of the defendant…”
Caparo v Dickman [1990] by Lord Bridge
Lord Bridge said that to hold the auditor liable is to: “confer on the world at large a quite unwarranted entitlement to appropriate for their own purposes the benefit of the expert knowledge or professional experience attributed to the maker of the statement.”
The Development of the Tort of Negligence - 19 century 2 cases
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co [1856] Heaven v Pender [1883}
Wide duty of care case law definition and by who ? what was the case about?
Heaven v Pender [1883] the owner of a dry dock supplied ropes that supported a stage slung over the side of a ship. The ropes had been previously burned, and the stage fell injuring a contractor working in the dry dock. The dry dock owner had failed in his duty of care as an occupier in relation to the condition of the ropes and was liable.
In the early 20th century, product liability was an area where no established duty existed. Which lord said that manufacturers cannot be responsible for the condition and contents of every bottle which issues from their work?
Mullen v Barr [1929] Lord Anderson
“In a case like the present, where the goods of the defenders were widely distributed throughout Scotland, it would seem little short of outrageous to make them responsible to members of the public for the condition and contents of every bottle which issues from their works.”
Neighboring principle by who and in which case?
Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 Lord Atkin
You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then, in law is my neighbour
The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called into question.”
Proximity case law? what was it about?
Watson v BBBOC [2001] Court of Appeal
the Court of Appeal considered whether the British Boxing Board of Control had sufficient proximity to Watson, a competitor.
It was held that they did. By setting the rules for the sport they had a responsibility to ensure safety, which included providing proper resuscitation equipment at the ringside (fast resuscitation can mitigate brain damage).
Foreseeability case laws ? 5 cases
Smith v Littlewoods [1987]it was not foreseeable that a failure to check their development site would lead to a fire started by children – so no duty to neighbouring property owners.
Home Office v Dorset Yacht [1970]
in this case ten borstal trainees were working on Brownsea Island under the control of three officers employed by the Home Office. Seven trainees escaped one night, boarded a yacht and collided with another yacht, the property of the respondents, and damaged it.
The owners of the yacht sued the Home Office in negligence.
Clearly this was a ‘novel’ as opposed to an established duty situation.
Which case did the case Lord said the time has come that we say it ought to apply unless there is some justification or valid explanation of the exclusion of the foreseeability?
Lord Reid Home Office v Dorset Yacht [1970]
the well-known passage in Lord Atkin’s speech should I think be regarded as a statement of principle. It is not to be treated as if it were a statutory definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances. But I think that the time has come when we can and should say that it ought to apply unless there is some justification or valid explanation for its exclusion…
the taking by the trainees of a nearby yacht and the causing of damage to the other yacht which belonged to the respondents ought to have been foreseen by the borstal officers as likely to occur if they failed to exercise proper control of supervision; in the particular circumstances the officers prima facie owed a duty of care to the respondents…
Who said that two-stage approach must be taken in terms of duty of care? which case? what was the case about?
In Anns v Merton LBC [1978], Lord Wilberforce
“…it is not necessary to bring the facts of that situation within those of previous situations in which a duty of carehas been held to exist. Rather the question has to be approached in two stages.
First one has to ask whether as between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has suffered the damage there is a sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood such that, in the reasonable contemplation of the former, carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage to the latter in which case a prima facie duty of care arises.
Secondly… it is necessary to consider whether there are any considerations which ought to negative, or to reduce or limit the scope of the duty…”
The local authority approved building plans for a block of flats and the flats were built later that year. However, by 1970 structural movement had begun to occur in the properties causing cracking to the walls and other damage, causing the properties to become dangerous. The claimant tenants in the flat began proceedings in 1972 in negligence against the council on the basis that the council had failed to properly inspect the building walls properly in order to ensure that the foundations were laid to the correct depth shown in the plans.
Issues
There were two specific issues. (1) Whether the council owed a duty of care to the claimants in respect of the incorrect depth of the foundations laid by the third-party builder. (2) Whether the claim was statute barred.
Decision/Outcome
(1) It was held that the council may be liable in negligence, but in limited circumstances. The relevant legislative provisions with regard to inspection did not place a duty on the council to inspect the walls, but did allow it the power to, if it considered inspection necessary. Therefore, failing to inspect would not render the council liable unless it was considered that it had failed to properly exercise its discretion to inspect and that they had failed to ensure proper compliance with building regulations. If inspections were carried out, the council retained discretion as to the manner of the inspections. If this discretion was not genuinely exercised, the council may be liable in negligence. (2) The claim was not statute barred, the limitation period running from the date at which the dangerous state of the property became apparent.
The three-stage test for duty of care? case law? by who?
Caparo v Dickman [1990] case the House of Lords confirmed the judgment of Bingham LJ in the Court of Appeal.
His ‘three stage test’ was used to determine the issue of duty of care in novel situations.
what is the case about - Caparo v Dickman 1990
concerned whether company auditors should be liable to existing shareholders and other investors for negligently prepared reports, showing a £1.3m profits instead of a £400,000 loss.
The Court of Appeal held that as a small shareholder, Caparo was entitled to rely on the accounts. Had Caparo been a simple outside investor, with no stake in the company, it would have had no claim. Because the auditors’ work is primarily intended to be for the benefit of the shareholders, and Caparo did in fact have a small stake when it saw the company accounts, its claim was good.
This was overturned by the House of Lords, confirming the dissenting judgment of Bingham LJ in the Court of Appeal.
what was another important comments by another lord in Caparo?
Lord Bridge said that to hold the auditor liable to anyone in the world regardless of the existence of the duty of care is to:
“confer on the world at large a quite unwarranted entitlement to appropriate for their own purposes the benefit of the expert knowledge or professional experience attributed to the maker of the statement.”
Policy Consideration case law? what was it about? what was the Supreme Court decision?
Robinson v CC of W Yorkshire [2018],
], a police officer saw W drug dealing, and called for support to make an arrest.
The decision was made that two officers would approach W from one side and two from the other side. The latter two officers were to arrive momentarily after the first two.
W resisted arrest and there was a struggle. W’s efforts to avoid arrest took him and the officers some metres away from the initial point of contact and the group then fell to the ground, colliding with and injuring the Claimant, a completely unconnected pedestrian, in the process. The Claimant sued for their injuries.
Robinson v Chief Constable West Yorkshire Police [2018] the majority of the Supreme Court dismissed the idea that there is a Caparo ‘test’. Lord Reed re-asserted that the starting point is to consider whether each factual situation gives rise to a duty of care according to existing precedents. If the claim is novel:
“The courts will consider the closest analogies in the existing law, with a view to maintaining the coherence of the law and the avoidance of inappropriate distinctions. They will also weigh up the reasons for and against imposing liability, in order to decide whether the existence of a duty of care would be just and reasonable.”
