Negligence - Duty of Care

Question 1

Donoghue v Stevenson

Answer 1

Facts: • C drank a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by D
• C had not bought the bottle herself, her friend bought it then gave it to her
• C finished the drink and discovered the remains of a snail at the bottom.
• C suffered shock and gastro-entitis

Judgment: Claim successful

L.P: • “must take reasonable care to avoid acts/omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”

•start of negligence, neighbour test

Question 2

Anns v Merton LBC

Answer 2

Facts: • D approved building of a block of flats, construction was completed in the same year
• structural movements led to walls cracking and other damage
• leases claimed negligence on councils behalf for failing to inspect buildings or ensure foundations were built to the correct depth

Judgement: claim failed

L.P: • Council had a power rather than a duty to inspect
• two stage test established:
1.) is there a relationship so the wrongdoer should realise carelessness may cause damage to the victim?
2.) If yes, was there a good reason to reduce/ cancel DoC to victim?

•high water mark of liability created

Question 3

Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman

Answer 3

Facts: • A form of accounts appealed against the decision they owed a DoC to shareholders when preparing and audit report
• The C brought action against D claiming the report was negligently misstated
• Report showed false profits, this C suffered a loss
• Firm submitted they owed no DoC since proximity was missing
• No DoC was found

Judgment: Appeal dismissed

L.P: •Caparo test formed:

1. ) Was it reasonably foreseeable that D’s failure to take care could cause damage to C?
2. ) Was there a relationship of proximity between C and D?
3. ) Is it fair just and reasonable that the Law should recognise a duty on D to take reasonable care not to cause damage to C?