duty of care Flashcards
when there are new circumstances…………
and no existing case law to establish whether a duty of care exists, Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire courts will use Caparo V Dickman to establish wether a doc exists
This is/ isn’t a new situation because…..
d will owe c a doc in this situation if
the three part test in Caparo v Dickman can be satisfied
the first element is
the harm must be reasonably foreseeable. this is illustrated in the case of Bourhill v Young - it was not reasonably foreseeable a pregnant woman who merely heard a motorbike crash would suffer a miscarriage from shock.
Kent v Griffiths it was reasonably foreseeable c would suffer further illness if the ambulance failed to arrive at a reasonable time
the harm was/ wasn’t reasonably foreseeable because….
there also has to be proximity
between d and c.
physical injury - courts are likely to find physical proximity where c is part of the event/ accident as there is proximity in terms of time and space.
However Bourhill v Young - c suffered nervous shock and wasn’t part of the accident as she only heard it from a street away so couldn’t prove physical proximity.
if there is a close enough relationship between d ad c courts may hold that there is sufficient proximity in some circumstances
there was/ wasn’t sufficient proximity
finally, it must be fair just and reasonable to impose a doc
some cases there are policy reasons why a doc is not fair to be imposed generally because courts are concerned any extension to the types of claims that could be brought would open the ‘floodgates of litigation’
sometimes the police, rescuers and emergency services are exempt.
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire the court decided it wouldn’t be fair for police to owe a doc to all potential victims of crime.
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire - police’s blanket immunity was removed.
Kent v Griffiths - fair for ambulance to owe a doc to a patient
explain wether it’s fair just and reasonable to impose a doc
