Negligence Duty Of Care Template

Question 1

New circumstances and no previous case law to establish if a duty exists

Answer 1

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Courts will use Caparo v Dickman to decide if a doc exists

Question 2

D will owe c a doc if

Answer 2

The three part caparo test in caparo v dickman can be satisfied

Question 3

First element of caparo test

Answer 3

Harm is reasonably foreseeable
Bourhill v young - not reasonably foreseeable a pregnant woman would suffer a miscarriage after hearing a crash
Kent v Griffith - reasonably foreseeable c would suffer further illness if ambulance failed to arrive in reasonable time

Question 4

Proximity

Answer 4

Has to be proximity between d and c
Physical injury = likely proximity bc c part of event/ accident so proximity in terms of space and time
Bourhill v young - c suffered nervous shock and wasn’t part of accident as she only heard it so no physical proximity
Close enough relationship between d and c courts my hold sufficient proximity in some circumstances

Question 5

Finally

Answer 5

Fair, just and reasonable to impose doc
Sometimes policy reasons stop doc because courts concerned about ‘floodgates of litigation’
Police, rescuers and emergency services sometimes exempt
Hill v Chief constable of West Yorkshire - court decided it wouldn’t be fair for police to owe a doc to all potential victims
Kent v Griffith - fair for ambulance to owe doc to patient