DUTY OF CARE Flashcards
When was DofC first established?
By master of the rolls BRETT in HEAVEN v PENDER 1883
Where is the most widely accepted beginning on DofC?
DONOGHUE v STEVENSON 1932 -> LORD ATKIN
What principle was established by LORD ATKIN in which 1932 case?
The neighbour principle in DONOGHUGE v STEVENSON
What was the definition of neighbour as per LORD ATKIN
‘Persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected’
Which case said policy arguments should be central idea behind D of C?
ANNS v MERTON 1978
Which case widened DofC to pure economic loss?
JUNIOR BOOKS v VEITCHI 1983
Which case began to limit where a DofC can be found?
HILL v CC WEST YORKSHIRE 1988
How did HILL 1988 restrict DofC?
Established there had to be sufficient proximity between C and D
Which case established the standard test for a DofC?
CAPARO v DICKMAN 1990
What is the CAPARO 1990 test?
Must meet 3 criteria:
- Foreseeability of injury
- Proximity between parties
- It is fair, just and reasonable to impose the DofC
Case facts BISHOP ROCK 1996
Policy decision not to impose DofC on not for profit organisations as this would encourage defence practices unfairly
Which case was confirmed as still valid in BISHOP ROCK 1996?
ANNS v MERTON 1978
What is the objective standard for DofC?
That of an ordinary citizen -> the man on the Clapham omnibus
Which case stated a person need only be reasonably competent, i.e. It’s not a high standard one is held to
WELLS v COOPER 1958
Which case recognised people do make mistakes they shouldn’t be liable for
THE OGOPOGO 1972
- Botched rescue attempt in boat collision
- It was an emergency situation where D’s tried their best = no DofC
Why don’t courts establish too high a standard for DofC even for emergency responders?
To avoid discouraging people from helping others
When can the standard for a DofC vary?
When children are involved -> MCHALE v WATSON 1966
- Unfair to hold a child to same standard as a reasonable adult
What’s a good example for how the objective DofC test is normally effective
DRIVERS
Two cases of drivers illustrating the general application of objective standard of a reasonable person?
NETTLESHIP 1971
BROOME v PERKINS 1987
Case facts of NETTLESHIP 1971
- New driver involved in an accident
- Said they should only be held to the standard of a reasonable person who was a new driver
- Court disagreed: by being on the road driving they should be held to the same objective standard of anyone else driving
Case facts BROOME v PERKINS 1987
- D was a diabetic who didn’t take his medication
- Suffered an attack whilst driving and caused a collision
- HELD: a reasonable diabetic would’ve taken precautions of this by taking their medication
What standard are professionals held to?
Normal standard of a person in that profession -> higher than that for the man on the Clapham omnibus
Which case considers there can be variation in professional opinion?
BOLAM 1957
How does BOLAM 1957 account for differences in professional opinion?
- Professionals will not be held liable if their actions accord with substantial and respectable body of opinion in their field
Which case applied the BOLAM 1957 case in a field other than medicine?
CARTY v CROYDON LBC 2005
What is the HAND FORMULA?
Dictates there will be a liability on D where the burden is less than the possibility of damage occurring, multiplied by loss suffered by C
Case for how high the burden can be?
LATIMER 1953
Case facts LATIMER 1953
- Slippy floor of a factory
- C fell and tried to bring a claim against them
- HELD: D would have had to close the entire factory to avoid risk = too much of a burden so were not liable
Case for how foreseeable the possibility of damage is?
BOLTON v STONE 1951
Case facts BOLTON v STONE 1951
- Cricketer hit a 6 that went out of the ground and hit C in the head, causing serious injury
- Only 6 shots had left the ground in the past 30 years
- HELD: not reasonably foreseeable as it happen so infrequently
Cases for how much the damage suffered must affect C?
PARIS v STEPNEY BC 1951
LONDON ELECTRICITY BOARD 1965
Case facts PARIS v STEPNEY BC 1951
- C only had one eye and was not given safety goggles at work
- Was an accident and he lost sight in the other eye
- Loss was particularly great as it completely blinded him
= DofC owed
Case facts LONDON ELECTRICITY BOARD 1965
- C was a blind man walking in the street
- LEB were working and had left a manhole open
- C fell into the hole and lost his hearing as well
- Burden on D to prevent the risk was low -> fence would’ve been enough
- Risk of someone suffering harm was foreseeable -> not just a blind person but anyone not paying attention
- Loss suffered was particularly great as C was now blind and deaf
- Established very clear DofC as per HAND PRINCIPLE
How high must the burden of proof be proven on balance of probabilities?
51% that D caused the harm to C due to their breach of DofC
What does RES IPSA LOQUITOR mean?
The thing speaks for itself
Case for RIL
LONDON AND ST KATHRINES DOCKS 1865
Case facts LONDON AND ST KATHRINES DOCKS 1865
- C was suffered harm in an area managed by D
- Even though there was little evidence of D’s liability, they were responsible for the area it happened in so were liable
Which case is a direct contrast to LONDON AND ST KATHRINES DOCKS 1865?
WARD v TESCO 1976
Case facts WARD v TESCO 1976
- C slipped and fell on some yoghurt that was on the floor in tesco
- Courts held that RIL should not be an easy way to allow a case to be established, should only be used when there is no other option = no liability
