Duty of Care Flashcards
Introduction
The case of Donoghue v Stevenson established the neighbour principle. Lord Atkin stated a person owed a duty of care to anyone so closely and directly affected by what they did or did not do.
-This principle was developed into a tripartite test set out in Caparo v Dickman
Tripartite test
1) Is it reasonably foreseeable that Ds act or omission will cause damage to C?
2) Is there proximity between the parties to create a duty?
3) Is it fair, just & reasonable to impose a duty?
Is it reasonably foreseeable that Ds act or omission will cause damage to C?
Kent v Griffiths: when the ambulance failed to turn up it was reasonably foreseeable the patient waiting for it would suffer harm.
Bourhill v Young: C did not see the accident but heard it and went voluntarily to look at it causing her to suffer a miscarriage. The damage to her was not reasonably foreseeable.
Is there proximity between the parties to create a duty?
This can be through time, a physical closeness (space) or due to a relationship.
McLoughlin v O’Brien: Cs family were involved in a car crash, caused by D’s negligence, in which her daughter died. She went immediately to the hospital where she witnessed the immediate aftermath of the accident – husband and children badly injured. This was considered as sufficient proximity because of her relationship to the injured.
Is it fair, just & reasonable to impose a duty?
The courts will not automatically impose a duty if it would be against public policy, i.e., if it would open the floodgates to litigation.
Hill v Ch. Const W. Yorks – Yorkshire Ripper case. The mother of one of his Vs claimed the police owed a duty as they failed to catch him which meant he went on to murder her daughter. It was not in the public interest to impose a duty on the police.
Is it fair, just & reasonable to impose a duty?
What’s the added point?
If the public authority contributes to the damage, and makes the situation worse, then a duty of care will be imposed.
Capital Counties Plc v Hampshire CC: when the fire brigade attended a fire and ordered the sprinklers to be turned off, it was fair just and reasonable to impose a duty as it caused the fire to spread.
