The Duty of Care in Negligence Flashcards
What are the three Caparo Test Limbs?
Reasonable Foreseeability of Harm
Proximity
Public Policy
What is Reasonable Foreseeability of Harm?
Essentially, it means that it is not far-fetched or fanciful that the claimant would suffer if the defendant was to be negligent. This is meant to be an objective test.
Is it the foreseeability of the defendant?
It is irrelevant if the defendant had not foreseen the danger, but if a reasonable person had then the defendant could still be liable.
What did Haley v London Electricity Board 1965?
These rare cases are undermined by the case of Haley v London Electricity Board [1965] AC 778 (HL) - which showed that even 1 in 500 Londoners are blind there was still held to be a foreseeable.
What is the requirement of the Limb 2 - Proximity?
Is there a sufficient closeness or connection between the claimant and defendant. The duty is not owed to the world at large.
What case shows the immunity that Police have in the third limb of the Caparo Test (Fair, just and reasonable)?
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
What cases up hold the Hill Immunity?
Osman v Ferguson [1993] 4 All ER 344 (CA)
Osman v UK [1999] 1 FLR 193 (ECtHR)
Brooks v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis [2005]1 WLR 1495 (HL)
Michael v CC of South Wales Police [2015] UKSC 2
When has the hill immunity been proven to be not absolute
Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police (No 2) [1997] QB 464
What cases have proven the Hill Immunity is water tight?
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4
Sherratt v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2018] EWHC 1746
Doctors who have performed negligent sterilizations (wrongful conception claims)
McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [2000] 2 AC 59 – several potential heads of damages available – including general damages for pregnancy/birth, special damages, but NOT for the costs of raising the child. Policy reasons:
