Negligence - Duty of Care

Question 1

• definition of negligence

- 3 steps of negligence

Answer 1

• BLYTH V BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS CO.
  Failing to do something which the reasonable person would do or doing something which the reasonable person would not do

1) Duty of care
2) breach of duty
3) is it fair, just and reasonable

Question 2

definition of duty of care

Answer 2

DONOGHUE V STEVENSON - NEIGHBOUR PRINCIPLE
We owe a duty of care to “persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that i ought reasonably to have them in contemplation”
CAPARO V DICKMAN - 3PART TEST
neighbour principle is too simplistic and easy to impose duty of care on people.
All 3 must be demonstrated
1- it was reasonably foreseeable that a person in C’s position would be injured
2- there was sufficient proximity between the parties
3- It is fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on D

Question 3

1st step

case

Answer 3

it was reasonably foreseeable that a person in C’s position would be injured

case
KENT V GRIFFITHS - OBJECTIVE TEST
would a reasonable person in d’s position have foreseen that someone in c’s position might be injured ?

Question 4

2nd step

case

Answer 4

there must be sufficient proximity between the parties
proximity= closeness

case
BOURHILL V YOUNG / MCGLOUGHLIN V O’BRIEN
Proximity can be space, time or relationship

Question 5

3rd step

case

Answer 5

is it fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on d
- matter of public importance
courts are concerned about not opening the “floodgates of litigation” - encouraging a huge number of claims (Hillborough)
- what is best for society as a whole
d’s in the public sector are more likely to have claims against them fail as it is not fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on them e.g. police need to act without undue worry about negligence claims against them

HILLS V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WEST YORKSHIRE