General Negligence - Duty of Care

Question 1

Alexandrou v Oxford

Answer 1

Ratio: There is no general duty for an emergency service to respond to a call.

Question 2

Barrett v MoD

Answer 2

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.

Question 3

Bourhill v Young

Answer 3

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.

Question 4

Caparo v Dickman

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

Capital and Counties Bank v Hampshire CC

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis

Answer 6

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.

Question 7

Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints v West Yorkshire Fire Authority

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

Cutler v United Dairies

Answer 9

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.

Question 10

Donoghue v Stevenson

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

Goldman v Hargrave

Answer 11

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.

Question 12

Haley v London electricity Board

Answer 12

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.

Question 13

Haynes v Harwood

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

Answer 14

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.

Question 15

John Munroe v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority

Answer 15

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.

Question 16

Kent v Griffiths

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

Lejonvarn v Burgess

Answer 17

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.

Question 18

Marc Rich v Bishop Rock Marine

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales

Answer 19

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.

Question 20

Mitchell v Glasgow CC

Answer 20

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.

Question 21

Mulcahy v MoD

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

Osman v UK

Answer 22

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.

Question 23

Palmer v Tees Health Authority

Answer 23

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.

Question 24

Paris v Stepney Borough Council

Answer 24

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.

Question 25

Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire

Answer 25

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.

Question 26

Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police

Answer 26

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.

Question 27

Smith v Littlewoods Organisation

Answer 27

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.

Question 28

Stansbie v Troman

Answer 28

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.

Question 29

Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police

Answer 29

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.

Question 30

Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Constabulary

Answer 30

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.

Question 31

Vowles v Evans

Answer 31

Ratio: A referee has a duty of care to players

Question 32

Wynne Jones v Kaney

Answer 32

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.

Question 33

Z v UK

Answer 33

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.

Question 34

Watson v British Boxing Board of Control

Answer 34

Ratio: An example of the Caparo Test being applied to find a duty.

Question 35

Spring v Guardian Assurance PLC and Others

Answer 35

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.

Question 36

White v Jones

Answer 36

Ratio: If the Caparo test proves deficient, a principle of fairness can be adopted.

Question 37

OLL Ltd v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Answer 37

Ratio: Coastguard service does not owe a duty to attend, only to not make things worse.

Question 38

Yuen Ken Yeu v AG Hong Kong

Answer 38

Ratio: Generally, there is no duty of care imposed on an omission or failure to act.

Question 39

Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

Answer 39

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.

Question 40

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Club

Answer 40

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.

Question 41

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

Answer 41

Ratio: Police are not generally responsible for harm inflicted by suspects.

Question 42

An Informer v A Chief Constable

Answer 42

Ratio: Police do not owe a duty in terms of pure economic loss, but they do in terms of safety.

Question 43

Topp v London Country Bus (South West)

Answer 43

Ratio: Bus company were not liable for joyriders even though they had left the keys in the ignition of the bus.

Question 44

Leach v Chief Constable of Gloucester

Answer 44

Ratio: No duty for police to inform interview witnesses of possible distressing content.

Question 45

Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

Answer 45

Ratio: Police owe duty of care to handle complaints properly.

Question 46

X v Bedfordshire CC

Answer 46

Ratio: Historically, court have been reluctant to impose duty of care on local council - e.g. for children in care.

Question 47

W v Essex County Council

Answer 47

Ratio: Recently, courts have been more liberal at imposing a duty on local councils.

Question 48

S v Gloucestershire CC

Answer 48

Ratio: No blanket immunity for cases concerning child abuse. Courts should look at circumstances of case to determine duty.

Question 49

JD v East Berkshire Community Heath NHS Trust

Answer 49

Ratio: Doctors and social workers investigating child abuse owe duty of care to the child.

Question 50

Merthyr Tydfil CBC v C

Answer 50

Ratio: Where parents are not suspected of abuse they may be owed a duty of care.

Question 51

Jebson v MOD

Answer 51

Ratio: Armed forces do not have immunity outside battle.

Question 52

Smith v MoD

Answer 52

Ratio: Doctrine of combat immunity should be narrowly construed and not extended beyond active combat to planning and preparing for operations.