Duty of Care

Question 1

Donoghue v Stevenson

Answer 1

Snail in ginger beer bottle case
Lord Atkin - neighbour principle - you owe a duty of care to your neighbour to avoid acts or omissions which would be likely to injure them.
Neighbour = persons so closely affected by my act that I ought to reasonably have them in my contemplation

On the facts of this case, specific duty to take reasonable care is owed by manufacturers of products which reach the consumer in the same form without opportunity to inspect, knowing that an absence of reasonable care will result in injury.

Question 2

What approach did Robinson suggest?

Answer 2

Facts - Old lady injured by police chasing drug dealer

Court encourage INCREMENTAL approach. Refer to previous precedent to find a duty of care. Only in novel situations should Caparo be used, it is not a ‘test’ for a duty.

Question 3

Examples of existing duties?

Answer 3

• Manufacturers (Donoghue)
• Neighbours (Donoghue)
• Drivers (Nettleship)
• Employers (Fairchild)

Question 4

Caparo

Answer 4

Only to be used in novel scenarios. 3 part test:

1. Damage must be reasonably foreseeable (Haley v London Electricity Board - reasonably foreseeable a blind person would fall into a hole dug)
2. Proximity between parties (Sutradhar - Research council did not owe duty to all citizens of Bangladesh to test for arsenic or to provide exact accurate information)
3. Fair just and reasonable (The Nicholas H - Unfair to impose duty on classification societies as they would have unlimited liability in negligence to shipowners and cargo owners)
   Relevant factors: Policy concerns eg floodgates, medical over-caution, conflicts between areas of law, hierarchy of interests.

Question 5

N v Poole

Answer 5

Alleged that public auth owed duty of care to abused children

They had not assumed responsibility - the services provided were not this extensive to entail an assumption (eg they had not taken the children into care).

Assumption said to be an undertaking that reasonable care will be taken (express or implied). And this is often implied due to the foreseeability of reliance on reasonable care being taken but reliance not necessary (HXA v Surrey).

Question 6

Rothwell and Dryden

Answer 6

Rothwell v Chemical Insulating Co - Claim in negligence impossible without damage - sense of being worse off physically or economically.
Here, symptomless ‘pleural plaques’ caused by asbestos exposure were not enough as no actual injury was caused. Anxiety and risk of future injury are not sufficient to ground a negligence claim.

Dryden: Personal injury = A physical change which makes the claimant appreciably worse off in respect of his health or capability.
This includes injuries sustained to a person’s physical capacity to enjoy life, and impairments.
In this case, Cs lost ability to work with platinum salts due to sensitisation - this was actionable damage.

Question 7

Darnley v Croydon

Answer 7

Post-Robinson novel case.
NHS Trust had a duty of care avoid causing physical injury to those who arrive. The scope of that duty extends to taking reasonable care to not provide misleading wait times Misleading statement by receptionist constituted breach.
Man left after 19 mins, court said this did not break chain as he wouldn’t have left if he got correct advice that he would be seen within 30.