Duty of care Flashcards
Which case holds the neighbour principle?
Donoghue v Stevenson 1932
What is the neighbour principle?
'’You must take reasonable care to avoid Acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour’’
The neighbour principle has been replaced by the three part test, what is the three part test?
- Was the damage or harm reasonably foreseeable
- Is there a sufficiently proximate relationship between the claimant and the defendant
- is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.
What case is the three part test established in?
Caparo v Dickman 1990
(Part one) What is a case for the harm being reasonably foreseeable, which an ambulance turning up late may cause harm.
Kent v Griffiths 2000
(Part one) What would be a case for when the harm was not foreseeable, in which the claimant had a miscarriage.
Bourhill v Young 1943
(Part two) What does it mean to have a proximate relationship
Closeness in time, space or relationship.
(Part two) If the harm is foreseeable, will a duty of care always exist?
No, only if the relationship between the defendant and claimant is sufficiently close.
(Part two) Even if the claimant was not involved in the accident or present when occurred but had relatives (victims) that was, can she still claim for foreseeable harm
In the case of Mcloughlin v O’brian we saw that you can as it was foreseeable she would suffer some harm ( nervous shock)
(Part two) Why was the relationship between the police and Hill’s daughter not close enough? (Hill v Chief constable of South Yorkshire 1990)
The police knew there was going to be another victim but didn’t know who it would be, so it was not close enough/.
(Part three) Why was public policy imposed?
To make sure they wouldn’t open ‘the floodgates of litigation’
(Part three) Why else might public policy be imposed?
So public sectors can carry out their jobs properly such as the police without worrying about legal action in negligence against them
What is the ‘policy test’
Where judges are able to limit the extent of potential claims.
What would be a case for when through their own actions that created a danger, the courts find it more likely to impose a duty of care
Capital counties PLC v Hampshire CC 1997 (ordered then sprinkler system at a fire scene to be turned off which created more damage as fire spread)
What are all the cases for Part one of the three part test?
Kent v Griffiths, Bourhill v Young
