Negligence: Duty of Care: Part 1

Question 1

C may have an action…

Answer 1

C may have an action against D in the tort of negligence

Question 2

C must prove that…

Answer 2

C must prove that, on the balance of probabilities, that D owed them a duty of care, D then breached that duty of care and that C’s damage was caused by D’s breach of duty and was not too remote from it.

Question 3

Duty of Care was first defined in…

Answer 3

Duty of Care was first defined in Lord Atkin’s Neighbour Principle in Donoghue v Stevenson as:

“You must take reasonable care to avoid doing acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”

Question 4

However, the 2018 case…

Answer 4

However, the 2018 case of Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police confirmed that there is no definitive test for a Duty of Care.

Question 5

In the first instance…

Answer 5

In the first instance, the court will look to apply an existing precedent or statutory (e.g. Road Traffic Act 1988).

Alternatively, it will develop the law incrementally and by analogy with the existing precedents. The Caparo Rules should only be used in a NOVEL CASE WITHOUT AN EXISTING PRECEDENT.

Question 6

Lord Reed specifically mentioned some cases…

Answer 6

Lord Reed specifically mentioned some cases where the Caparo rules are not needed – Hospital to Patient (DARNLEY v CROYDON NHS TRUST), Motorist to Other Road User (SUMNER v COLBOURNE AND OTHERS), Manufacturer to Consumer, and Employer to Employee.

Question 7

1. Here this seems to be…

Answer 7

Here, this seems to be a novel case so the Caparo Rules will apply here. OR. Here this case seems to be based on the precedent set in……so there is no need to apply the Caparo Rules and there will be a Duty of Care between C and D.

Question 8

4. Here, it is fair, just and reasonable…

Answer 8

Here, it is fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care between the claimant and the defendant because the relationship seems to be sufficiently proximate because e.g. they were on the same road and so had a relationship between time and space AND/OR had a relationship of responsibility proximity because they were employer to employee/motorist to other road user AND due to public safety reasons it is fair that a driver owes a duty of care to other road users AND there are no public policy reasons not to impose a duty of care as D is not part of the emergency services.

Question 9

To Conclude…

Answer 9

TO CONCLUDE, all 3 Caparo Rules are satisfied so D did owe C a duty of care.