Negligence: Duty of Care Flashcards
What does the term ‘tort’ signify in civil law, and what are the key characteristics of tortious liability?
The term ‘tort’ means ‘wrong.’ It refers to the infringement of a legal right or breach of a legal duty, leading to a claim in civil courts. Tortious liability arises when a tortfeasor commits such a breach. Tort law governs situations where one party sues another for actions causing harm, and the parties involved are called the claimant (formerly the plaintiff, pre-1999) and the defendant.
Define negligence in a legal context and explain how it differs from the everyday understanding of the term.
Legally, negligence is defined as “a breach of a legal duty of care owed to a claimant that results in harm, undesired by the defendant.” Unlike the everyday sense of carelessness, legal negligence requires proving a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and resulting harm. For instance, a distracted driver causing an accident may be negligent both in everyday and legal terms, but liability depends on fulfilling all legal criteria
What are ‘established duty situations’ in negligence law? Give examples and specify the type of damages they cover.
Established duty situations are relationships where case law clearly recognizes a duty of care. Examples include:
- One road user to another: Drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians owe duties to each other.
- Doctor to patient: A medical professional must provide care to avoid harm.
- Employer to employee: Employers owe a duty to ensure workplace safety.
- Manufacturer to consumer: Manufacturers must ensure their products are safe (Donoghue v Stevenson).
- Teacher to pupil: Educators must prevent harm to students.
Describe the neighbor principle established in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) and its significance in tort law.
The neighbor principle, established in Donoghue v Stevenson, states that individuals must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions likely to harm their “neighbors.” Lord Atkin defined neighbors as those “so closely and directly affected by an act that one ought reasonably to have them in contemplation.” This principle introduced foreseeability and proximity as criteria for imposing a duty of care and marked a pivotal moment in modern negligence law.
What is the Caparo test, and how does it refine the neighbor principle for novel duty situations? Include the three elements of the test.
The Caparo test, derived from Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990), refines the neighbor principle for new duty scenarios with three criteria:
- Reasonable foresight of harm: Harm to the claimant must be reasonably predictable (e.g., Bourhill v Young, where harm to the claimant was deemed unforeseeable).
- Proximity of relationship: A sufficiently close relationship must exist between the claimant and defendant.
- Fair, just, and reasonable: Courts evaluate policy considerations to decide if imposing a duty aligns with broader legal and societal goals (e.g., Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire).
Explain the general rule regarding liability for omissions in tort law and an example case demonstrating this rule.
The general rule is that no duty of care arises for omissions (failure to act). For example, in Stovin v Wise (1996), a highway authority knew a junction was dangerous but did not act to mitigate it. When an accident occurred, the court held the authority owed no duty of care because it failed to act positively but did not make the situation worse.
Under what conditions can an omission lead to liability in negligence? Include examples from case law or hypothetical scenarios.
Liability for omissions arises when:
- A party has a special relationship of control, such as:
* Employer-employee (ensuring workplace safety).
* Teacher-student (preventing injuries during school activities). - A party takes action but worsens the situation, as in East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent (1940), where the defendant’s slow repair of a sea wall did not worsen flooding but highlighted the principle.
For instance, if a teacher fails to stop a pupil from running into traffic, they may owe a duty due to their control relationship.
What policy factors do courts consider when deciding whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care in novel situations? Illustrate with an example.
Courts evaluate:
- Floodgates argument: Preventing excessive litigation (Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire).
- Deterrence: Encouraging responsible behavior.
- Resources: Impact on societal insurance premiums.
- Public benefit: Improved safety (e.g., decisions promoting safer transport systems).
- Upholding the law: Consistency with legal principles.
In Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, imposing a duty on the police was deemed unfair as it might overly burden public services.
How does foreseeability affect the duty of care in negligence claims? Provide an example where foreseeability was a key factor.
Foreseeability ensures that harm to the claimant was predictable from the defendant’s actions. In Bourhill v Young (1943), the claimant’s miscarriage due to shock from a road accident was unforeseeable to the motorcyclist, so no duty was owed. Foreseeability ensures a direct and logical link between the defendant’s conduct and the claimant’s harm.
Differentiate between physical harm, pure economic loss, and psychiatric harm in negligence law. How do courts handle these claims differently?
- Physical harm: Includes personal injury or property damage and is most commonly compensated (Donoghue v Stevenson).
- Pure economic loss: Rarely compensated unless tied to a physical harm (e.g., loss from faulty products).
- Psychiatric harm: Requires stricter criteria due to its subjective nature, often denied unless linked to a recognized condition from physical harm.
Courts are cautious in imposing duties for economic or psychiatric harm due to challenges in establishing proximity and foreseeability.
What is the first step to determine liability in negligence, and what happens if the requirement is not met?
The first step is to determine whether the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care. If no duty of care is owed, there is no liability in negligence.
What steps must be considered after confirming a duty of care is owed in negligence?
After confirming a duty of care is owed, the following steps are:
- Determine if the defendant breached the duty.
- Assess if the breach caused damage to the claimant.
- Consider any defenses available to the defendant.
What additional consideration is necessary when determining a duty of care in novel situations?
For novel situations, the Caparo test must be applied to assess:
- Foreseeability of harm.
- Proximity of relationship.
- Whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty.
What happens if the Caparo test is not satisfied in a novel duty situation?
If the Caparo test is not satisfied, no duty of care exists, and there is no liability in negligence.
