Duty Of Care Flashcards
Donoghue v Stevenson
Got really ill from a ginger beer at a cafe. No foreseeability - no duty.
Established the the Neighbour Principle - you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which can be reasonably forseen would be liable to injure your neighbour”
Anns v Metron LBC
Established the two-stage test.
1) is there a sufficient relationship of proximity between the C and D.
2) reasonable foreseeability.
Peabody + Murphy v Brentwood District Council
Overruled the ‘two part test in Anns
Caparo v Dickman
‘Three part Test’
1) foreseeability
2) proximity
3) fair, just and reasonable
Current approach
Foreseeability -Topp v London Country Bus
Unattended bus, bus stolen, claimant injured - wasn’t foreseeable that the bus would be stolen and she would be injured.
Foreseeability - Jolley v Sutton LBC
Paralysed when boat fell. Duty was found after appeal - Foreseeable that children would play on boat same as fixing boat.
Proximity- Bourhill v Young
Saw blood after a crash, still born baby.
No proximity as she didn’t see the original accident happen, only heard it.
Proximity - Hill v CC of West Yorkshire
Yorkshire ripper, 13th victim.
Mum tried to sue - no proximity - couldn’t be accountable for every person.
Proximity -Dorset Yatch v Home Office
Offenders left alone, crashed a boat into a Yatch and got damaged.
There was proximity as they had the responsibility to look after the offenders.
FJR - Mcfarlane v Tayside Health
Vasectomy, and then got pregnant.
Not fair to impose a duty - should be a happy moment.
FJR - Watson v BBBC
Got injured, not the rift equipment was available.
Fair to impose duty, not because of injury but because of lack of equipment.
Policy Considerations
Loss allocation. Moral considerations. The floodgates argument. Deterrent value. Protection of professionals.
AO2 Arguments
1) need for clear rules
2) importance of D v S
3) Ann’s led to floodgates argument
4) Courts + Policy Issues
5) Proximity issues
6) FJR - judges decision
7) benefits the law
