View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Negligence – Duty of CareTort Law
© The Law Bank
Tort
Negligence
General principles – Duty of Care
1
Negligence – Duty of CareTort Law
© The Law Bank
Objectives
• Explain what is meant by the term ‘duty of care’
• Identify and explain the ‘neighbour test’ and
the Caparo three-part test
2
Negligence – Duty of CareTort Law
© The Law Bank
Definition of negligence
• Negligence is a tort (or civil wrong)
• Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks company 1856
– D owed a duty of care
– D breached that duty
– C suffered damage as a result of that breach (Causation)
– The damage suffered was not too Remote
3
Negligence – Duty of CareTort Law
© The Law Bank
When does a duty of care exist?
• Definition – a duty which one person owes to
another to take proper care of the other
• Concerns relationship between defendant and
claimant
• Must be such that there is an obligation upon the
defendant to take proper care to avoid causing
injury to the claimant in all circumstances of the
case
4
Negligence – Duty of CareTort Law
© The Law Bank
Established duty situations
• One road-user to another
• Employer to employee
• Manufacturer to consumer (Donoghue v
Stevenson)
• Doctor to patient
• Solicitor to client
5
Negligence – Duty of CareTort Law
© The Law Bank
The neighbour principle
• Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
• You owe a duty of care to anyone you ought to
have in mind who might potentially be injured by
your act or omission
6
Negligence – Duty of CareTort Law
© The Law Bank
Lord Atkin -
• “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or
omissions which you can reasonably foresee
would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who,
then in law is my neighbour? The answer seems
to be persons who are so closely and directly
affected by my act that I ought reasonably to
have them in my contemplation as being so
affected when I am directing my mind to the acts
or omissions which are called in question.”
7
Negligence – Duty of CareTort Law
© The Law Bank
• This neighbour principle was used by judges
until
Caparo v Dickman 1990
• This test is only used if it is a novel case, if there
is already a pre-existing duty, Robinson v Chief
Constable of West Yorkshire 2018 and you
don’t need to apply the 3 criteria
8
Negligence – Duty of CareTort Law
© The Law Bank
Caparo Test
9
Was damage or harm reasonably foreseeable
Was there sufficient proximity of relationship?
Was it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
Duty of care
Yes
Yes
Yes
No liability in
negligence
No
No
No
Negligence – Duty of CareTort Law
© The Law Bank
Damage or harm
reasonably foreseeable• This depends on the facts of the case
• Kent v Griffiths 2000
10
Negligence – Duty of CareTort Law
© The Law Bank
Proximity of relationship
• Even if the harm is foreseeable , a duty of care
will only exist if there is sufficient proximity of
relationship
• Bourhill v Young 1943
• Mcloughlin v O’Brien 1982
11
Negligence – Duty of CareTort Law
© The Law Bank
Fair, just and reasonable
• Hill v Chief Constable of west Yorkshire police
1990
12
Recommended