Duty of Care

Question 1

DONOGHUE v STEVENSON (***)

Answer 1

NEGLIGENCE: 1) DUTY OF CARE 2) BREACH OF DUTY 3) CAUSE A LOSS. NEIGHBOURHOOD PRINCIPLE. “The categories of negligence are never Closed.” Lord MacMillan

Question 2

DORSET YACHT CO LTD v HOME OFFICE (***)

Answer 2

FACTS: Seven boys under 3 officers. Left at night and damaged yacht. Manifest risk if they neglected duty. Held duty of care.
POL: Donoghue is a statement of principle.

Question 3

ANNS v MERTON LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (***)

Answer 3

Operationalised duty of care question into a two stage test. Development from Donoghue to Caparo. 
POL: 1) sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood such that, in the reasonable contemplation of the former, carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage to the latter – in which case a prima facie duty of care arises 2) any considerations which ought to negative, or to reduce or limit the scope of the duty or the class of person to whom it is owed or the damages to which a breach of it may give rise

Question 4

MARC RICH AND CO AG v BISHOPROCK MARINE CO LTD, THE NICHOLAS H. (*)

Answer 4

FACTS: Cargo shop. cracks on haul so stop at harbour.Called surveyor who said safe and just needs some repairs. Could make journey. Wrong. Cargo lost. No duty of care. Liability elsewhere.
POL: Tripartite test also applies to damage to property cases. (LORD STEYN)

Question 5

COLERIDGE v MILLER CONSTRUCTION LTD. (*)

Answer 5

FACTS: Construction works. Glass factory nearby. Cut electric which damages furnace and all glass inside is ruined. Not fair, just and reasonable to impose. Also argument by judge about not being reasonably foreseeable (e.g. impact of breaking the supply)
POL: Tripartite test applies to Scotland (LORD MACLEAN)

Question 6

GIBSON v ORR (*)

Answer 6

FACTS: Flooding river, bridge collapses. Checkpoint by police on one side but still open on the other. Lights flashing on the side acts as a warning to people on the other side as well so are likely to slow down or stop. Police car then left for an unknown reason. Driver came on other side and drowned. ASSUMED RESPONSIBILITY. Liable.
POL: “The concept of assumption of responsibility (combined with reliance by the other party on such assumption)… (acts) as a touchstone for determining whether or not proximity existed.” LORD HAMILTON.

Question 7

MITCHELL v GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL (***)

Answer 7

FACTS: Feud between neighbours. Meeting and said troublesome neighbour should move out. Then goes back and kills their neighbour. Realistically council saw how he reacted to the news and they could have warned the other. However, no liability.
POL: “Duty to warn another person… at risk of loss, injury or damage as the result of the criminal act of a third party will arise only where the person who is said to be under that duty has by his words or conduct assumed responsibility for the safety of the person who is at risk.” LORD HOPE

Question 8

MUIR v GLASGOW COROPRATION(***)

Answer 8

FACTS: Hot water. tea party. children. (see breach)
POL: “Legal liability is limited to those consequences of our acts which a reasonable man of ordinary intelligence and experience so acting would have in contemplation.” - STANDARD OF CARE.