Duty of Care

Question 1

Caparo Industries v Diskman 1990

Answer 1

New test for establishing a duty of care.
3 part test:
1) Was it reasonably foreseeable that D’s conduct would harm C?
2) Relationship of proximity between C and D?
3) Fair, just and reasonable for the law to impose a duty?
Accounts published by defendant were negligent and so the claimants sued in negligence. Claim failed as no duty of care.
Lord Bridge rejected Donoghue v Stevenson and Anns v Merton London Borough Council tests for duty of care. Too narrow, need to also be fair and reasonable to impose duty.

Question 2

Bourhill v Young 1943

Answer 2

Caparo test 1) was it reasonably foreseeable that D’s conduct would harm C?
No foresight so no duty of care.
Mrs Bourhill saw Young’s body and tried to sue him for negligence. Caused her to give birth to a stillborn.

Question 3

Palmer v Tees Health Authority 1999

Answer 3

Caparo test 2) relationship of proximity between C and D?

There was insufficient proximity between the hospital and the child murdered and assaulted by the out-patient.

Question 4

Robinson v Chief Constable v West Yorkshire Police 2018

Answer 4

Caparo test 3) fair, just, and reasonable for the law to impose a duty?
The police cannot be sued in negligence apart from exceptional circumstances.
Police officers did not owe the woman a duty of care, they knocked her over when chasing suspected drug dealer.

Question 5

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 1989

Answer 5

No duty of police.
Grounds that the police were negligent in catching a serial murderer. The court said that they did their best, even the police will make mistakes from time to time.

Question 6

Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 2000

Answer 6

In custody, attempted suicide earlier so the police were liable for later suicide.

Question 7

Stovin v Wise 1996

Answer 7

Duty of care - omissions.
No liability for omissions - nonfeasance. Lord Hoffman explained that omissions require different treatment from positive conduct.
Stovin did not slow down, so Wise crashed into his vehicle.

Question 8

Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis 1955

Answer 8

An exception to the general rule on omissions = overturned by the Caparo test = high degree of proximity required. D has responsibility or control over C or a third party.
Teachers were found to have responsibility over the children.

Question 9

Costello v CC Northumbria Police 1999

Answer 9

An exception to the general rule on omissions = assumption of responsibility by D for C.
Police inspector failsd to go to woman’s assistance when she was attacked by a prisoner in the cell.

Question 10

Capital & Counties plc & Hampshire CC 1997

Answer 10

An exception to the general rule on omissions = D has created or adopted an existing risk.
3 joint appeals against emergency fire services. Negligent responses on call outs.
1 appeal upheld, liable if actions made the fire worse.

Question 11

X v Bedfordshire County Council 1995

Answer 11

Courts take a restrictive approach to the duty of care of public bodies. They often take the viewpoint that public bodies are not liable.
The council was found not to have a common law duty to take care of the children abused.

Question 12

Mulcahy v MOD 1996

Answer 12

Public bodies - one service man owes no duty to another in combat conditions. The commander negligently fired the gun, which adversely affected the plaintiff’s hearing.

Question 13

Kent v Griffiths 2001

Answer 13

Public bodies - delay in arrival of ambulance.
London Ambulance service was liable for being unjustifiably slow (took 38 minutes to arrive), by which time the claimant had suffered a respiratory arrest.

Question 14

OLL Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport 1997

Answer 14

Coastguard failed to respond after capsizing. Does not owe a duty of care in respect of rescue operations unless activity leads to greater injury than would have otherwise occurred. So claim was dismissed.

Question 15

Sawyer and Simmons 1996

Answer 15

Fell of bar stool in pub onto broken glass.
The staff had a system where they checked for glass every 20 minutes. It was a busy Saturday lunchtime.
The court said that the duty of the pub was to have a reasonable system for checking and their system sounds good - it is difficult to effectively check every 20 minutes.

Question 16

Martin v Middlesborough 1965

Answer 16

Glass milk bottle smashed on the floor. Contrast to Sawyer v Simmons 1996 because Sawyer v Simmons 1996 was a pub, this is a school. Different context.
Caretaker had a duty to prevent any broken glass on the playground. Court viewed the duty differently.

Question 17

Tutnam v Water

Answer 17

Sprayed pesticide and so the neighbour’s bees were poisoned. The harm was foreseeable as the pesticide packet had warnings plastered all over it and knew that their neighbour kept bees.
Forseeable damage therefore there was a duty of care.

Question 18

Rufus v Lindsay

Answer 18

Drunken passenger left in the street 30m from the cash point. The passenger got run over.
Was not fair, just nor reasonable (Caparo test requirement) to impose any liability on the taxi driver and would not be the first thought to blame the driver for this. Where would the liability end?