Duty of care

Question 1

C may have an

Answer 1

action against D in the tort of negligence

Question 2

C must prove that,

Answer 2

on the balance of probabilities, D owed them a duty of care, D breached that duty of care, and C’s damages was caused by D’s breach of duty and was not too remote from it.

Question 3

Duty of care was first defined by

Answer 3

Lord Atkin’s neighbour principle in DONGHUE v STEVENSON: “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.

Question 4

In CAPARO INDUSTRIES v DICKMAN

Answer 4

a more restrictive 3 part test was established, known as the Caparo rules

Question 5

However, the

Answer 5

2018 case of ROBINSON v CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WEST YORKSHIRE POLICE confirmed that there is no single definitive test for duty of care.

Question 6

In the first instance the court will look to apply an

Answer 6

existing precedent or statutory authority (eg. Road traffic Act 1988. Alternatively, it will develop the law incrementally and by analogy with existing precedents. The Caparo Rules should only be used in a ‘novel case’ , without an existing precedent.

Question 7

Lord Reed

Answer 7

specifically mentioned some cases where the Caparo Rules are not needed- - hospital to patient (DARNLEY v CROYDON NHS TRUST), motorist to other road user (SUMNER v COLBORNE AND OTHERS), manufacturer to consumer, and employer to employee.

Question 8

Here, this seems to be seems to be a novel case, so

Answer 8

the Caparo Rules will apply.

Question 9

Firstly,

Answer 9

was some damage to the claimant reasonably foreseeable (“foresight”)? as in KENT v GRIFFITHS

Question 10

Here, some damage to C was

Answer 10

reasonably foreseeable because…

Question 11

Secondly,

Answer 11

was the relationship between the claimant and defendant sufficienty proximate (‘proximity’)?- either physically through time and space as in BOURILL v YOUNG or due to relationship of responsibility, as in WATSON v BRITISH BOARD OF BOXING CONTROL.

Question 12

Here, the relationship between C and D was sufficiently proximate

Answer 12

because…

Question 13

Thirdly,

Answer 13

was it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care between the claimant and defendant? as in MITCHELL v GLASGLOW CC and in HILL v CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WEST YORKSHIRE. It will usually be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty, unless there are public policy reasons not to, such as protecting the emergency services from working in fear of being sued, but even this exception is now in doubt following ROBINSON v CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WEST YORKSHIRE POLICE.

Question 14

Here it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care between C and D

Answer 14

because…

Question 15

TO CONCLUDE,

Answer 15

all 3 Caparo Rules are satisfied so D did owe C a duty of care