Duty Of Care

Question 1

Definition of negligence

Answer 1

“a breach of a legal duty to take care which resulted in damage to the claimant”

Question 2

How to establish negligence - the three elements

Answer 2

1) Duty
2) Breach
3) Causation

Question 3

Neighbour Principle

Answer 3

Donoghue V Stevenson
-lLord Atkin: “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.”

Question 4

Caparo v Dickman

Answer 4

• no longer the leading case
• check for analogous precedent, if not, then use the 3 stage-test/ Caparo’s criteria
  1) damage must be foreseeable -objective
  2) there must be sufficiently proximate relationship between the parties
  3) 3) It must be “fair, just and reasonable”

Question 5

Components of proximity (caparo test)

+case law

Answer 5

• relationship between the parties –>Osman v Ferguson (school teacher harassing pupil) Everett V Comojo (nightclub manager owes guests a DOC)
• assumption of responsibility–>Kent v Griffiths (Ambulance service)
• whether the C is part of a class of people who were or could have been affected by the relevant harm, and if so, the size of the class–>Hill v CC west Yorkshire Police 1999

Question 6

“fair, just and reasonable”–>caparo v dickman

Answer 6

factors relevant:

• type of harm
• whether damage is caused by a positive act or omission
• type of d being sued

Question 7

DOC- Robinson v Chief Constable Of West Yorkshire

Answer 7

• no definitive test for DOC
• Caparo was not intended to be a test used in each case before the court
• correct approach would be to compare novel situations with any established precedents and thereby allow for the law to develop ‘incrementally and by analogy with established authorities’.
• public authorities dont receive special treatment

Question 8

case facts of Robinson V Chief Constable Of West Yorkshire

Answer 8

The Appellant in Robinson was an elderly lady who was knocked to the ground during an attempted arrest of a drug dealer by police officers. As a result of the events, the Appellant suffered personal injuries and subsequently made a claim against the Respondent.