Duty of Care Test

Question 1

3 parts to duty of care test

Answer 1

proximate relationship
harm is reasonably foreseeable
fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty

Question 2

1. Reasonably foreseeable harm

Answer 2

this asks if the reasonable person could foresee their act or omission could cause harm or injury to another

Question 3

Kent v Griffiths (case for reasonably foreseeable harm)

Answer 3

facts: claimant called for ambulance which didnt arrive on time. C suffered respiratory attack.
held: claimant won. it was ‘reasonably foreseeable’ that the claimant would suffer further illness if an ambulance did not arrive promptly.

Question 4

2. Proximity of relationship

Answer 4

determined by the Donoghue ‘neighbour’ test

Question 5

Bourhill v Young

Answer 5

facts: D motorist crashed into car and died, the shock of observing his dead body caused the pregnant C’s miscarriage.
C made a claim for negligence against D’s estate for psychiatric shock
held: D was not liable
C couldnt have been seen behind carriage, thus physical injury by shock was not reasonably foreseeable

Question 6

McLoughlin v O’Brien contrast

Answer 6

different result here as the claimant was related to those in the accident, only a limited number of people couldve been affected so the decision hasnt opened the floodgates

Question 7

3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?

Answer 7

this allows the courts to consider what is best for society and the law as a whole, they have to balance this with the floodgates argument

Question 8

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

Answer 8

courts are often reluctant to impose a duty on public authorities
facts:
held: the relationship was not sufficiently proximate, and it would be unfair to impose this duty, it could lead to ‘defensive policing’. this might divert resources away from prevention of crime and lead to lower standards.