Negligence: Duty of Care

Question 1

What are the elements of negligence that must be established?

Answer 1

1) Recognised loss suffered by the claimant
2) Duty of Care owned by the defendant
3) Breach of that duty by the defendant
4) Breach caused by claimants loss
5) Loss is not too remote
6) No defences apply.

Question 2

What are the three stages of the Caparo test for establishing a duty of care?

Answer 2

1) Was the damage reasonably foreseeable?
2) Was there a relationship of proximity
3) Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?

Question 3

How does the current approach to duty of care work in negligence cases?

Answer 3

1) Looks for precedent (e.g category of duty)
2) If no precedent exists, apply Caparo test instead.
3) Use cases to guide application of the Caparo test.

Question 4

Name two established categories of duty of care.

Answer 4

1) Manufacturer & Consumer - Donoghue v Stevenson 1932
2) Road users - Nettleship v Weston 1971

Question 5

Case law: Donoghue v Stevenson 1932

Answer 5

Facts:

• Mrs. Donoghue consumed a bottle of ginger beer purchased by a friend.
• The bottle contained a decomposed snail, causing her to fall ill.
• She sued the manufacturer (Stevenson) for negligence.

Legal Issue:

• Does a manufacturer owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of its products, even without a direct contractual relationship?

Court Held:

• The court established the Neighbour Principle, stating that a person owes a duty of care to others who could be reasonably affected by their actions.
• The manufacturer was held liable for failing to ensure the product’s safety, as harm to the consumer was foreseeable.

Question 6

Case law: Nettleship v Weston 1971

Answer 6

Facts:

• A learner driver (Weston) was taking driving lessons from Nettleship, a friend.
• Weston lost control of the car and caused an accident, injuring Nettleship.
• Nettleship sued Weston for negligence.

Legal issue:

• Should a learner driver be held to the same standard of care as an experienced driver?

Court Held:

• The court held that a learner driver is expected to meet the same standard of care as a reasonably competent driver.
• Weston was found liable for Nettleship’s injuries despite being a learner.

Question 7

What is the general rule regarding omissions in duty of care, as established in Smith v Littlewoods (1987)?

Answer 7

No duty of care is owed for omissions unless exceptions apply (e.g., dangerous situations created by the defendant, special relationships of control, or assumed responsibility).

Question 8

Does the police owe a general duty of care to individuals to prevent harm?

Answer 8

Generally, no, as seen in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales (2015), unless a specific duty to an individual can be established

Question 9

Case law: Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales (2015)

Answer 9

Facts:
- A woman (Michael) called 999, reporting her ex-partner had threatened to kill her.
- The call was downgraded in priority, and police did not arrive in time.
- Michael was murdered before their arrival.

Legal Issue:
- Does the police owe a duty of care to protect individuals when a risk of harm has been reported?

Court Held:
- The Supreme Court held that the police do not owe a duty of care to individuals unless there is a specific assumption of responsibility.
- The police’s general public duty to prevent crime does not create liability in negligence for failing to protect specific individuals.