negligence: duty of care Flashcards
what are the three elements of negligence
- duty of care
- breach of duty
- damage
Donoghue v Stevenson
- manufacturers owe a duty to the ultimate consumers of their products
- this case established the ‘neighbour principle’ for deciding when a person would be under a duty
the caparo test for duty of care
caparo v dickman (1990)
- the neighbour test was replaced by a three part test:
- was the damage or harm reasonably foreseeable?
- is there a sufficient proximity (closeness) between the C and the D?
- is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
reasonably foreseeable
reasonably foreseeable:
Kent v Griffiths (2000):
- C suffered an asthma attack. her doctor called for an ambulance that took 30 minutes to arrive. C suffered a heart attack. C sued the ambulance service and won.
- it was reasonably foreseeable that C would suffer harm from the failure of the ambulance service to arrive in a reasonable amount of time
Jolley v Sutton (2000):
- the council were the owners of land where an old boat had been abandoned for about years. the council knew that the boat was in a dangerous condition and that children were likely to play on it
- C a 14-year-old boy was paralysed when he and a friend had propped it up on a car jack while they tried to repair the boat that fell on him
- it was reasonably foreseeable that SOME injury would occur if children played on or around it and D had been negligent in not removing it
not reasonably foreseeable:
bourhill v young (1943):
- a motorcyclist was speeding. he crashed into a car and was killed. Mrs B, who was 8 months pregnant, was about 50 yards away. she heard the accident but did not see it. afterwards she saw blood on the road and suffered shock and her baby was stillborn. she claimed against the motorcyclist’s estate
- the court held that the motorcyclist did not owe her a duty of care as it was not reasonably foreseeable that she would be affected by his negligent driving
proximity of the relationship
- proximity means closeness in terms of physical space, time or relationship
HO v Dorset Yacht (1970):
- D’s borstal officers allowed seven boys to escape from a training camp on the harbour while they were asleep. they stole C’s boat and caused damage to other boats in the harbour.
- Held: C won. Borstal authorities owed a duty of care to the owners of property near the camp because their loss was foreseeable. the duty would not have extended to others in further afield
- D’d owed DOC to people who owned property nearby. there was physical closeness through time and space
proximity and the police (legal proximity)
Hill v CC S.Yorkshire (1988)
- relationship was not sufficiently proximate for the police to be under a duty of care when they had no way of knowing who the next victim might be
Osman v Ferguson (1993)
- there was a sufficiently proximate relationship between the C and the police because the police knew that there was a real risk to the school boy
- note: these cases failed on stage three of the Caparo Test because it was ruled that it was not fair, just and reasonable to impose a DOC on the police
fair, just and reasonable
- the courts are usually reluctant to impose a duty on public authorities, such as the police:
Hill v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1990):
- it was not f, j and r to impose a duty on police because it could lead to policing being carried out in a defensive way which would lead to lower standards of policing not higher ones
- however this does not give the police blanket immunity, in some cases the police do owe a duty of care…
Robinson v CC of W. Yorkshire Police (2018)
- Mrs R was severely injured when 2 policemen fell on top of her whilst ‘negligently’ effecting the arrest of a suspected drug dealer. Lost in COA because of Hill ‘immunity’ under the f, j and reasonable test
- SC said that the case concerned a positive act as opposed to an omission
- lord reed emphasised that Hill does not grant the police general immunity. the police can be liable for negligence resulting in personal injury
