Tort - duty of care

Question 1

What is duty of care

Answer 1

Shown through Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 - snail
Established the neighbour principle - you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour

Question 2

What does Caparo v Dickman 1990 set out

Answer 2

Sets out the three part test
Was the damage or harm reasonably foreseeable
Is there a sufficiently proximate relationship
Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty

Question 3

Reasonably foreseeable

Answer 3

Dependant on the facts of the case-
Kent v Griffith’s 2000 - doctor called for an ambulance, it didn’t arrive within a reasonable time without a reasonable excuse. Patient suffered a heart attack which she wouldn’t have suffered had she done to hospital earlier.
Therefore reasonably foreseeable that claimant would suffer harm from the failure of the ambulance to arrive
Jolly v Sutton London borough council 2000 - 14 year old boy was repairing a boar abandoned on council land. The council knew it was dangerous and that children were likely to play on it. The boat collapsed and paralysed the boy, the council is liable as reasonably foreseeable

Question 4

Not foreseeable

Answer 4

Bourhill v young 1943 - motor cyclist crashed into a car whilst driving too fast. Driver was killed.
Pregnant women said the aftermath of the accident suffered a shock and the baby was stillborn
Pregnant women tried to claim compensation but wasn’t reasonably foreseeable
Topp v London country buss 1993 - driver left the bus unattended with the keys in. The bus was stoked and then involved in an accident - not reasonably foreseeable

Question 5

Proximity

Answer 5

Relationship between defendant and claimant has to be sufficiently proximate
Hill v chief Constable of West Yorkshire 1990- serial killer, claimants daughter was the last victim, the police already had enough info to arrest but they hadn’t done so before the daughter was murdered.
Mother claimed duty of care
No proximate relationship between daughter and police - no way of knowing she would be the victim
Osman v Ferguson 1993 - police knew there was a real risk as the attacker had staked a schoolboy, police knew but did nothing, father of the boy was murdered and the police suffered serious injuries - was a proximate relationship

Question 6

Fair, just and reasonable

Answer 6

For the courts to decide
Often reluctant to find liable on fair, just and reasonable grounds
Particularly with regards to police
Capital and counties Plc v Hampshire council 1997 - at the scene of a fire a fire officer ordered the sprinkler system to be turned off - fire spread.
Fair just and reasonable to claim liability