TORT law - unit 2 Flashcards
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
What does it mean to say that a duty of care is not owed to the world at
large?
The duty of care is only owed to individuals who are foreseeably affected
by one’s actions within a certain proximity or relationship, such as a
neighbour or customer. This principle limits liability by focusing on
specific, foreseeable relationships rather than imposing a universal duty.
If a duty of care is not owed to the world at large, when is it owed? Identify
the two most important decided cases which establish the nature of the
relationship required for a duty of care to arise.
A duty of care is owed when there is a foreseeable risk of harm to
someone within a proximate relationship to the person or entity taking
action. The two key cases that establish this principle are:
1. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) - This case introduced the
“neighbor principle,” establishing that a duty of care is owed to
persons who are foreseeably affected by one’s actions, even
without direct interaction. This case clarified that one must avoid
acts or omissions that could likely cause harm to one’s “neighbors.”
2. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990) - This case refined the
duty of care concept by establishing a three-part test:
foreseeability of harm, proximity between parties, and
whether imposing a duty is fair, just, and reasonable. This
test limits duty to situations where there’s a close, predictable
connection, and legal responsibility is justified.
What is the general rule relating to duty of care in relation to omissions to
act?
Generally, the law does not require people to act to prevent harm to
others, so you’re not liable just for not helping someone. However, there
are exceptions: if you have a special relationship (like parent and child), if
you’ve taken responsibility for someone, or if you created a risky
situation, you might be legally required to act.
Explain when the general rule in relation to omissions to act may be
modified.
The general rule that there is no duty of care for omissions may be
modified in specific situations where a person has a legal or established
responsibility to act. These situations include:
1. Special Relationships: A duty may arise when there is a close
relationship, such as between parents and children, employers and
employees, or doctors and patients, where one party has a recognized
obligation to look after the other’s well-being.
2. Assumption of Responsibility: If a person voluntarily takes responsibility
for another’s safety, a duty of care may be imposed. For example, if
someone begins to assist an injured person, they may be required to
continue helping to avoid making the situation worse.
3. Creation of a Danger: If someone’s actions create a hazardous
situation, they may have a duty to prevent harm resulting from it. For
example, if a person spills something slippery on the floor, they may be
responsible for warning others or cleaning it up to prevent accidents.
These exceptions ensure that, in specific circumstances, individuals are
required to act reasonably to prevent harm to others.
Describe the standard of care required of the defendant in a negligence
claim.
The standard of care in a negligence claim requires the defendant to act
as a “reasonable person” would in the same situation. This means doing
what most people would do to avoid causing harm to others.
Describe the standard of care which is required of children.
The standard of care required of children is based on what is reasonable
for a child of similar age, intelligence, and experience in the same
situation. Children are generally not held to the same standard as adults,
recognizing their lower capacity for judgment
When determining whether a defendant has breached their duty of care
what is the relevance of:
o The likelihood of an accident occurring
o The potential seriousness of the harm caused if an accident
does occur.
When assessing whether a defendant has breached their duty of care, the
likelihood of an accident occurring, and the potential seriousness of harm
are both crucial factors:
1. Likelihood of Accident: If the risk of an accident occurring is high, the
defendant is generally expected to take greater precautions. Conversely,
if the likelihood of harm is very low, fewer precautions may be considered
reasonable.
2. Seriousness of Harm: The more severe the potential harm, the higher
the standard of care expected from the defendant. Even if the likelihood
of an accident is low, if the potential harm is serious (e.g., severe injury or
death), the defendant is often required to take additional measures to
prevent it.
Together, these factors help determine if the defendant’s actions were
reasonable and whether they took adequate steps to prevent foreseeable
harm.
What mean word precautions?
“Precautions” are actions taken in advance to prevent possible harm or
reduce risks. In a legal context, this means steps or measures that a
reasonable person would take to avoid accidents or injuries, like putting
up warning signs, fixing hazards, or following safety guidelines.
explain and apply the principles applicable in novel duty situations.
In novel duty situations, where established precedents may not exist, the principles of duty can still be applied through a framework that assesses relationships, foreseeability, and the nature of the harm. Here are key principles and how to apply them:
-
Foreseeability
- Principle: A duty of care may arise if a reasonable person could foresee that their actions might cause harm to others.
- Application: In a new technology context, such as a self-driving car, manufacturers must consider whether their designs could foreseeably lead to accidents. If an unforeseen malfunction causes injury, the manufacturer may be liable if it could have been anticipated.
-
Relationship
- Principle: The existence of a special relationship can establish a duty of care, even in novel situations.
- Application: Consider an online platform that connects users for services (like a ride-sharing app). The platform may have a duty to ensure user safety and security because it facilitates direct interactions between users.
-
Public Policy
- Principle: Courts may consider public policy implications when determining whether a duty exists, particularly in novel scenarios.
- Application: If a new drug has side effects that were not disclosed, pharmaceutical companies may have a duty to inform users, as failing to do so could have broader implications for public health.
-
Reasonableness
- Principle: The standard of care in determining duty is based on what a reasonable person would do in similar circumstances.
- Application: If a tech company develops a new app that uses personal data, it must act reasonably to protect user privacy, such as implementing robust security measures to prevent data breaches.
-
Balance of Interests
- Principle: The duty of care may involve balancing the interests of the parties involved, including potential harm versus benefits.
- Application: In cases involving environmental impact (like a new industrial project), the company must balance economic benefits against potential harm to the community and environment.
Example Scenario
Context: A new social media platform uses algorithms to promote content. Users are harmed by cyberbullying encouraged by the platform’s algorithms.
- Foreseeability: The platform creators should foresee that their algorithms could amplify harmful content.
- Relationship: Users have a direct relationship with the platform, which may imply a duty to protect them from harm.
- Public Policy: Courts may support user protection policies to promote a safer online environment.
- Reasonableness: A reasonable platform would implement measures to monitor and mitigate harmful content.
- Balance of Interests: The platform must balance user engagement (a business goal) with the need for a safe user environment.
In conclusion, while novel duty situations may not have clear legal precedents, these principles provide a framework for assessing responsibilities and obligations.
understand and apply the standard of reasonable care and breach of duty.
Understanding and applying the standard of reasonable care and breach of duty involves assessing how a person’s actions align with what a reasonable person would do in similar circumstances. Here’s a breakdown of these concepts:
Standard of Reasonable Care
Definition: The standard of reasonable care refers to the level of caution and concern an ordinary person would exercise in a similar situation to prevent harm to others.
Key Considerations:
Context: The standard may vary based on the situation (e.g., a professional’s duty versus an average person’s).
Reasonableness: Actions are judged based on what a reasonable person would do, not what a perfect person would do.
Foreseeability: A key factor in determining reasonable care is whether the potential harm was foreseeable.
Application:
Example: A driver must obey traffic laws and be attentive. If a driver is distracted by their phone and causes an accident, they may be found to have breached the standard of reasonable care.
Breach of Duty
Definition: Breach of duty occurs when an individual fails to meet the standard of reasonable care, resulting in harm to another party.
Elements to Establish Breach:
Existence of Duty: First, it must be established that a duty of care existed.
Standard of Care: Identify the relevant standard of care applicable to the situation.
Failure to Meet Standard: Show that the defendant’s actions fell short of the standard of reasonable care.
Causation: Demonstrate that this breach directly caused the harm suffered.
Application:
Example: A property owner must maintain safe conditions. If a property owner ignores a broken step and a visitor is injured, the owner may be found to have breached their duty of care.
Example Scenario
Situation: A grocery store has a spill in one of its aisles but fails to put up a warning sign or clean it up.
Existence of Duty: The grocery store has a duty to keep its premises safe for customers.
Standard of Care: A reasonable grocery store would regularly inspect for hazards and clean spills promptly.
Failure to Meet Standard: By not cleaning the spill or warning customers, the store may have breached this standard of care.
Causation: If a customer slips on the spill and is injured, the store’s failure to act reasonably contributed to the injury.
Conclusion
To apply the standard of reasonable care and establish a breach of duty, one must carefully analyze the actions taken against what a reasonable person would have done in similar circumstances. By doing so, it is possible to assess liability in various situations effectively.
