Tort Law 3.3 Liability in Negligence

Question 1

Duty of Care

Answer 1

Legal obligation imposed on an individual, requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing acts that could foreseeable harm others.

Question 2

What are the two tests to decide whether a duty of care should be created?

Answer 2

Donoghue test (original) and Caparo test (new)

Question 3

Donoghue v Stevenson

Answer 3

Must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions you can reasonably foresee are likely to injure your neighbour.

A Neighbour is anyone so closely and directly affected by your actions that you ought to reasonably have them in your contemplation.

Question 4

Caparo v Dickman

Answer 4

Damage must be reasonably foreseeable.
Must be a relationship of proximity.
Fair, just and reasonable to impose DoC.

Question 5

What does the case of Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire tell us

Answer 5

the Caparo test should only be used in a novel type of case, where established principles do not provide an answer. Caparo will only be used if there are no previous cases that are sufficiently similar.

Question 6

Established Principles

Answer 6

The courts will consider the closest analogies in the existing law, with a view to maintaining the coherence of the law and the avoidance of inappropriate distinctions.

Question 7

3 part-test case

Answer 7

Caparo v Dickman —> Shares mis-valued —> 3 part test.

Question 8

Breach in DoC case Blyth v Birmingham Water Works

Answer 8

Blyth v Birmingham Water Works: Hydrants that D installed along a street leaked because of cold temperatures, causing water damage to the house. Plaintiff sued for negligence.

Held: Not liable, it had not been that cold in a long time and it was seen as unreasonable for BWW to anticipate this.

Question 9

Result of Blyth v Birmingham Water Works

Answer 9

there is an objective test: omitting to do something a reasonable man would do, or doing something a reasonable man would not do.