Negligence - Duty of Care Flashcards
Negligence Issue
Unlike with intentional delicts, unintentional have the potential to create tons of victims and negligence cases. Therefore the law has created devices in order to limit the liability of unintentional delicts and the negligence arising from them.
Duty of Care development
Arose from courts and it implies there are some people that you should always look out for when carrying out certain acts. It is always there, reduce dangers and minimise potential for cases to arise. ‘A will be liable if duty of care excited prior’ Thomson
3 Key Elements
Duty of Care owed to pursuer
Duty breached
Breached caused a loss
Standard of Care
What would a reasonable man do in the same situation. Muir v Glasgow City Corporation
Donoghue v Stevenson
Neighbourhood principle. Buckmaster originally did not understand it, thought company must see too many possibilities. Thankerton agreed but due to opaque then case.
Atkin and MacMillinan followed US Lawyer - McPherson v Buick Motor Co (Owe duty of care to purchaser)
Atkin - Owe duty of care to persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought to have them in contemplation.
Became 1) Close degree of proximity 2) Reasonable foreseeability
Caparo Industies plc v Dickman
Added a third element that it should be fair, just and reasonable to be held liable.
Test became 1) Close degree of proximity
2) Reasonably foreseeable
3) Fair, just and reasonable
Marc Rich & Co AG v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd
Crack on boat, got checked, apparently fine but it wasn’t. Attempted to claim in delict, but it failed on the third test.
Coleridge v Miller Construction Ltd
It isn’t fair, just and reasonable to hold them accountable for a glass factory being shut down.
Assumption of responsibility
Gibson v Orr - Police set up a warning to a collapsed bridge then left it, someone drove into it
Mitchell v Glasgow City Council - Violent neighbour, threatened to kill other one, and there was found no responsibility
