Negligence Duty of Care A03 Flashcards
What the 3 potential WDPs for Negligence Duty of Care
Caparo test > neighbour principle
Police Immunity
Established Duty of Care Categories
+P1: Caparo test > neighbour principle (case)
More detailed clarification of the law = more effective than Donoghue v Stevenson which was too wide and lacked clarity → Caparo seeks to achieve fairness and justice
+-DP1: Part 3 of the Caparo test - fair and just (case)
allows judges to make public policy decisions HOWEVER criticised as giving judges too much power to decide fairness - seen in Mulchay v MoD
-WDP1: Judges being able to decide what is fair and just….
unfair on CL who have suffered damage, and even death, and the courts will often protect certain professionals and not bring justice to families affected
-P2: Decision in Hill v CCWYP is criticised…
seen as blanket immunity for police, reducing police accountability = unfair
+DP2: HOWEVER, decision in Michaels v CCSWP is justified…
with floodgates argument, don’t want police priorities to be affected by the risk of being sued = fair
+WDP2: Robinson v CCWYP developed the law…
binding precedent creates fairness - stressed police do have a duty of care to the public → promotes accountability
+P3: Robinson v CCWYP…
a DoC automatically owed if it is in one of the categories allows the process to be quicker and more efficient = fair on claimant avoiding length Caparo test
+DP3 Clarified the law and established police do have an established duty of care,… (case)
removes the perception in Hill v CCWYP that police as overly protected → increases fairness
-WDP3: Unjustified and unfair as police can…
not be found negligent for their omissions despite their legal duty → unfair on CL especially if they have suffered serious farm/families of those who have suffered fatality
