General Negligence - Duty of Care Flashcards
Alexandrou v Oxford
Ratio: There is no general duty for an emergency service to respond to a call.
Barrett v MoD
Ratio: Assumption of responsibility for the claimant’s welfare by the defendant can give rise to a duty of care in an omission situation.
Facts: A naval airman got very drunk and collapsed. His colleagues helped him briefly and then put him to be and left him. Held that they had voluntarily assumed a duty of care.
Bourhill v Young
Ratio: The damage must be reasonably foreseeable for there to be a duty of care.
Facts: A pregnant woman heard a motorcycle crash. She later walked past and saw blood on the road. She went into shock and lost her baby. Held that there was no duty of care since the damage was not reasonably foreseeable.
Caparo v Dickman
Ratio: Established the three stage test for duty of care: 1. Would a reasonable person foresee that failure to take care could cause the general type of harm suffered by the claimant? 2. A certain type of relationship or connection must exist between the parties. 3. Fair, just and reasonable.
Capital and Counties Bank v Hampshire CC
Ratio: Although there is no duty to respond, when emergency services do respond they have a duty not to make things worse.
Facts: A fireman attending a fire turned the building’s sprinklers off, making the situation worse.
Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis
Ratio: A duty of care can be imposed where the defendant has a right or responsibility to control the third party who caused the harm.
Facts: A relationship of care was found between the school authority and the pupil. An unattended pupil wandered into a road. A motorcyclist swerved to a void him, crashed and successfully sued the council.
Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints v West Yorkshire Fire Authority
Ratio: Although there is no duty to respond, when emergency services do respond they have a duty not to make things worse.
Facts: Three fire hydrants were not working, and a further one could not be located and so there was an insufficient supply of water to fight a fire.
Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police
Ratio: Assumption of responsibility for the claimant’s welfare by the defendant can give rise to a duty of care in an omission situation.
Facts: A police officer was attacked while escorting a prisoner to a cell. Despite calling for help, a senior officer nearby did nothing. Held that there was a duty of care between the two police officers as a result of their job.
Cutler v United Dairies
Ratio: No duty will be owed where there is no immediate threat to anyone but a rescuer intervenes nonetheless.
Facts: A man was injured when he entered a field to calm some horses. Because the horses were not a threat to anybody at that time, no duty of care was owed.
Donoghue v Stevenson
Ratio: Established the concept of a duty of care in tort.
Facts: Donoghue ate an ice cream float made with ginger beer in a cafe. The ginger beer bottle was opaque and turned out to have a decomposing snail in it. She subsequently fell ill and sued the manufacturer.
Goldman v Hargrave
Ratio: A duty of care arises where an individual becomes aware of a danger and has the opportunity to take reasonable steps to remedy it.
Facts: A landowner decided to leave a tree which had caught fire after being struck by lightning to burn out. The fire spread to the neighbouring property and caused damage. The landowner was held responsible.
Haley v London electricity Board
Ratio: Example of a reasonably foreseeable danger.
Facts: Workmen left a hole in the road with a shovel next to it to warn pedestrians. A blind man fell in the hole and injured himself. Held that this was foreseeable and so a duty of care was owed.
Haynes v Harwood
Ratio: A duty of care will be owed to a rescuer by the individual who created the dangerous situation.
Facts: A policeman was injured after catching a bolting horse. Held that the horse’s owner owed a duty of care to the rescuer as he had created the danger by leaving the horse unattended.
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Ratio: 1. There must be sufficient proximity between a potential victim and the police to establish a duty of care. 2. For policy reasons, the police are unlikely to be held liable for failing to apprehend criminals.
Facts: The mother of the final victim of the Yorkshire Ripper sued the police for failing to apprehend him.
John Munroe v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority
Ratio: Although there is no duty to respond, when emergency services do respond they have a duty not to make things worse.
Facts: The fire brigade left a fire before all fires had been properly extinguished and one flared up again.
Kent v Griffiths
Ratio: The ambulance is an extension of the health service and so acceptance of a 999 call establishes a duty of care to respond in a reasonable time.
Facts: An ambulance took over half an hour to respond to an emergency call about a severe asthma attack.
Lejonvarn v Burgess
Ratio: A duty of care can be established voluntarily.
Facts: A professional consultant architect had assumed a duty of care in relation to gratuitous work performed for her friend. She had designed free garden landscaping but underestimated the cost and later remedial works were needed.
Marc Rich v Bishop Rock Marine
Ratio: Liability is only ever imposed where it is fair, just and reasonable to do so.
Facts: A ship surveyor recommended repairs and said the vessel was safe to sail. It sank and the claimant sought damages from the surveyor.
Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales
Ratio: The police are partially immune from liability for procedural failings. Police have no duty to respond to a 999 call in a reasonable time.
Facts: The police miscategorised an emergency call, resulting in the death of the caller.
Mitchell v Glasgow CC
Ratio: A duty of care is not owed to warn others of potential dangers.
Facts: Two council tenants were in a dispute. The council evicted one of them, who then killed the other tenant in a rage. Held that although it was foreseeable there was no duty for the council to warn the other tenant.
Mulcahy v MoD
Ratio: It is not FJR to impose a duty of care between fellow servicemen in battle conditions.
Facts: A soldier was injured following negligent action by a fellow soldier.
Osman v UK
Ratio: The ECtHR held that the police’s blanket immunity was a violation of Art 6 ECHR as it denied a claimant the right to a fair trial.
Facts: A teacher who had been stalking a pupil attacked him and killed his father. The police had been aware of the situation but did not act. The Court of Appeal found no duty, following the police’s immunity for procedural matters, established in Hill.
Palmer v Tees Health Authority
Ratio: In cases where there is a failure to prevent a third party from causing harm, the claimant must be someone at risk of damage over and above the public at large.
Facts: A hospital allowed a psychiatric patient into the community without adequate supervision. The patient sexually assaulted and murdered a child. Held that there was insufficient proximity between the parties for a duty of care to exist - the child was not an identifiable potential victim.
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
Ratio: If an employer is aware of a particular employee’s weakness, they may owe them a particular duty of care in relation to it.
Facts: A man who was blind in one eye lost the sight in his other eye due to a work accident. His employer was aware that he was partially sighted but had not provided goggles.
Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire
Ratio: Where the negligence results from an operational error, the police may owe a duty of care.
Facts: Police fired a canister of CS spray into a shop to flush out a dangerous criminal. The shop caught fire and the owner sued for negligence.
Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police
Ratio: Where the evidence is credible and the threat is specific and imminent, reasonable steps must be taken to assess the threat and if necessary do something about it.
Facts: A man was attacked by his former boyfriend. He had previously warned police about the threat. No duty found.
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation
Ratio: 1. Generally, there is no duty of care imposed on an omission or failure to act. 2. There is no duty to guard against the acts of a third party if they are not foreseeable.
Facts: Littlewoods bought a derelict cinema. While it was vacant, vandals broke in and set fire to it, damaging neighbouring properties. Held that there was no duty to guard against vandalism.
Stansbie v Troman
Ratio: A contractual relationship can create a duty of care.
Facts: A decorator forgot to lock the door when he left the claimant’s house to fetch some wallpaper. The house was burgled while he was out. The contractual relationship created a relationship of proximity between the parties that meant the decorator owed a duty of care.
Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police
Ratio: The police can owe a duty of care to witnesses/informants.
Facts: A lady gave information to the police on the condition that she remain anonymous. A file with her details in was lost and she suffered psychiatric injury as a result. Held that there was a duty of care owed by the police since their special relationship with the witness gave rise to sufficient proximity.
Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Constabulary
Ratio: If the police are unaware of a threat to a witness’s life, they will have no duty of care.
Facts: The victim was killed before testifying at trial. Held that the police owed no duty since they did not know of a real or immediate threat to his life.
Vowles v Evans
Ratio: A referee has a duty of care to players
Wynne Jones v Kaney
Ratio: 1. Removed the immunity from liability for negligence that was previously enjoyed by expert witnesses. 2. Solicitors can be liable for negligence but judges cannot.
Facts: A joint statement of expert evidence was signed by the claimant’s psychiatrist. The psychiatrist had not reviewed the report and it turned out to be severely detrimental to the claimant’s case.
Z v UK
Ratio: The ECtHR admitted to having misunderstood English law in Osman. The authorities do not enjoy a total immunity which restricts access to a court - limits are instead placed by the substantive right of action itself.
Facts: Case concerning child abuse which had been reported repeatedly but not acted on for five years.
Watson v British Boxing Board of Control
Ratio: An example of the Caparo Test being applied to find a duty.
Spring v Guardian Assurance PLC and Others
Ratio: The law on duty of care can be expanded into new areas.
Facts: The defendant was found to owe a duty of care to give careful job references about claimant.
White v Jones
Ratio: If the Caparo test proves deficient, a principle of fairness can be adopted.
OLL Ltd v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Ratio: Coastguard service does not owe a duty to attend, only to not make things worse.
Yuen Ken Yeu v AG Hong Kong
Ratio: Generally, there is no duty of care imposed on an omission or failure to act.
Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
Ratio: Exame of a situation where a duty of care is imposed on an omission where the defendant has a high degree of control over the claimant.
Facts: Police failed to prevent a man in their custody committing suicide. They were found to owe him a duty of care.
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Club
Ratio: 1. In cases where there is a failure to prevent a third party from causing harm, the claimant must be someone at risk of damage over and above the public at large. 2. A duty of care can be imposed where the defendant has a right or responsibility to control the third party who caused the harm.
Facts: Borstal boys, under the care of the Home Office, escaped and caused harm to a boat.
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Ratio: Police are not generally responsible for harm inflicted by suspects.
An Informer v A Chief Constable
Ratio: Police do not owe a duty in terms of pure economic loss, but they do in terms of safety.
Topp v London Country Bus (South West)
Ratio: Bus company were not liable for joyriders even though they had left the keys in the ignition of the bus.
Leach v Chief Constable of Gloucester
Ratio: No duty for police to inform interview witnesses of possible distressing content.
Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
Ratio: Police owe duty of care to handle complaints properly.
X v Bedfordshire CC
Ratio: Historically, court have been reluctant to impose duty of care on local council - e.g. for children in care.
W v Essex County Council
Ratio: Recently, courts have been more liberal at imposing a duty on local councils.
S v Gloucestershire CC
Ratio: No blanket immunity for cases concerning child abuse. Courts should look at circumstances of case to determine duty.
JD v East Berkshire Community Heath NHS Trust
Ratio: Doctors and social workers investigating child abuse owe duty of care to the child.
Merthyr Tydfil CBC v C
Ratio: Where parents are not suspected of abuse they may be owed a duty of care.
Jebson v MOD
Ratio: Armed forces do not have immunity outside battle.
Smith v MoD
Ratio: Doctrine of combat immunity should be narrowly construed and not extended beyond active combat to planning and preparing for operations.
