Liability for physical injury to people and damage to property: Flashcards
Duty of Care
Legal obligation imposed on an individual, requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing acts that could foreseeable harm others.
DoC Test: Donoghue v Stevenson
Must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions you can reasonably foresee are likely to injure your neighbour.
A Neighbour is anyone so closely and directly affected by your actions that you ought to reasonably have them in your contemplation.
DoC Test: Caparo v Dickman
Damage must be reasonably foreseeable.
Must be a relationship of proximity.
Fair, just and reasonable to impose DoC.
What does the case of Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire tell us?
Caparo Test should only be used in a novel type of case, where established principles do not provide an answer.
Caparo will only be used if there are no previous cases that are sufficiently similar.
Define Established Principles
The courts will consider the closest analogies in the existing law, with a view to maintaining the coherence of the law and the avoidance of inappropriate distinctions.
Caparo v Dickman Case
Shares were misvalued.
Caparo brought an action against the auditors saying they were negligent in certifying the accounts
Held: No DoC as there was not sufficient proximity between Caparo and the auditors
Bourhill v Young Case
C heard the collision and later arrived at the scene and saw blood, went into shock causing her baby to be still born. Brought a negligence claim.
Held: No proximity
What case does objective test of breach in DoC come from?
Blyth v Birmingham Water Works
Blyth v Birmingham Water Works Case
Hydrants that D installed along a street leaked because of cold temperatures, causing water damage to the house. Plaintiff sued for negligence.
Held: Not liable, it had not been that cold in a long time and it was seen as unreasonable for BWW to anticipate this.
As a result of Blyth v Birmingham Water Works
An objective test: omitting to do something a reasonable man would do, or doing something a reasonable man would not do.
How will professionals be judged?
Professionals will be judged on the standard of a reasonable person in that profession.
How will Trainees be judged?
This does not apply to trainees, a learner driver will be judged to the standard of a reasonable driver.
How will children be Judged?
A child will be judged to the standard of a reasonable child.
Montgomery v Lancashire Case:
C had diabetes while pregnant and under care of a doctor who did not inform her of 9-10% risk of shoulder dystocia.
Baby suffered severe disability as a result. C sought for negligence. Court dismissed at first.
Held: Decision appealed and judge found Bolam nest not applicable. Doctor was to undertake a DoC and warn of any risks
Bolam Test
A test that is judged by the medical professional’s peers. Must be able to show that any medical professional who was in the same position, would have done the same, giving the same outcome.
Court Considers: Factor 1 of acting reasonably
Degree of risk involved - Greater risks means more precautions D has to take to be judged as a reasonable person (Bolton v Stone).
Factor 1 Case: Bolton v Stone
C injured after a ball from cricket pitch flew into home.
Held: D not in breach of DoC, likelihood of harm was very low, erecting a higher fence would be impractical. Club was a service to the community and a reasonable cricket club would not have acted differently.
POL: Higher risk means more precautions to take so they can be judged reasonably.
Factor 2: Cost of Precautions
CoP not to outweigh risks involved (Latimer v AEC).
Factor 2 Case: Latimer v AEC
C worked in D’s factory and slipped. Factory was flooded, there were warning signs, it was mopped with sawdust placed in common areas to increase safety.
Held: No breach in duty, D took reasonable precautions.
POL: Court will not expect CoP to outweigh risk involved.
Factor 3: Potential Seriousness of injury
More serious the potential injury, greater level of care required to be judged acting as a reasonable person (Paris v Stepney Borough Council).
Factor 3 Case: Paris v Stepney Borough Council
C had one eye and a metal splinter went into it at work and blinded him. The employer did not provide safety goggles.
Held: D was in breach of duty, he only had one eye so there was a strong potential for great harm. Reasonable person would take great steps to protect.
POL: More serious the potential injury, greater level of care required to be judged as a reasonable person.
Factor 4: Importance of Activity
Some risk may be acceptable if socially important (Watt v Hertfordshire County Council).
Factor 4 Case: Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
C injured by equipment not secured due to rush to save a life.
Held: No breach of duty. The emergency situation and utility of D’s conduct in saving a life outweigh the need to take precautions.
POL: Some risk may be acceptable if risk is socially important.
Damage
Must be caused by breach ‘but for’
Not too remote from breach from breach (foreseeable) –> precise chain of events need not be foreseeable.
