Duty of Care Flashcards
Revise important case principles
What legal principle was established in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562?
The ‘neighbour principle’: A duty of care is owed to those who are closely and directly affected by one’s acts or omissions.
What were the facts in Donoghue v Stevenson?
Mrs Donoghue drank ginger beer containing a decomposed snail, causing her to suffer shock and gastroenteritis.
According to Lord Atkin, who is one’s ‘neighbour’ in law?
Persons who are so closely and directly affected by one’s act that one ought reasonably to have them in contemplation.
What was Lord MacMillan’s view on negligence in Donoghue v Stevenson?
The law recognises negligence only where there is a duty of care and failure in that duty causes damage; carelessness in the abstract is not actionable.
Why was the decision in Donoghue v Stevenson significant?
It established a general duty of care owed by manufacturers to consumers, even in the absence of a contract.
What duty does a doctor owe to a patient as stated in Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479?
A duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in diagnosis, treatment, and provision of information.
What principle was affirmed in Modbury Triangle v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254?
Occupiers generally owe no duty of care to protect entrants from the criminal acts of third parties.
What did Jaensch v Coffey (1984) 155 CLR 549 establish regarding duty of care for psychiatric harm?
A duty of care may be owed even to someone not present at the scene if proximity and foreseeability are satisfied.
What are the types of proximity considered in Jaensch v Coffey?
Physical, circumstantial, and causal proximity.
What approach to duty of care was adopted in Perre v Apand (1999) 198 CLR 180?
The ‘salient features’ or multiple factors approach, evaluating proximity, foreseeability, vulnerability, autonomy, and knowledge.
What key questions did McHugh J outline in Perre v Apand for determining duty of care?
Foreseeability, indeterminate liability, burden on autonomy, plaintiff vulnerability, and defendant knowledge.
What is the significance of Caltex Refineries v Stavar [2009] NSWCA 258?
It affirmed the multifactorial ‘salient features’ approach for determining duty of care in novel cases.
