Duty Of Care Flashcards
What happened in Donogue v Stevenson?
The Appellant drank a bottle of ginger beef, which had been bought by a friend and given to her. The bottle was opaque and she could not see that there was a decomposed snail in the bottle. She consumed the drink and got very ill. She felt the manufacture had a duty of care.
What was held in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)?
Lord Atkin said “You must take reasonable care to a void acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Your neighbour is the person who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called into question.
Why is Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) significant?
Because it a laid a new precedence for tort law under the neighbour principle. Now producers couldn’t get past negligence through a loop hole in contract but instead had to consider “ultimate consumers”. Neighbour included not just two parties but those affected by actions or negligent actions.
What was held in Dorset v Yacht (1970) - (After Donogue)?
A presumption in favour of duty of care
Lord Reid: “I think the time has come when we can and should say that it (the duty of care) ought to apply unless there is some justification or valid explanation for its exclusion.”
What happened in Anns v Merton (1978)?
The respondent was a lessee of a long lease of flats in Wimbledon. The owners of the blocks were also the builders and they granted long leases. There appellants were under a duty to give proper consideration to the question if inspection.
What was held in Ann’s v Merton (1978)?
The 2 Stage Test - The House of Lords ordered the council to compensate for the repair costs needed to avoid danger to the health and safety of the occupants. The principle established was the Anna tests - Firstly it has to be examined if there is a sufficient relationship or neighbourhood between both party (in which a duty of care arises)
Secondly if there are any reasons or policy considerations of whether the duty shouldnt exist.
Brennan J. quote on incremental approach in Sutherland Shire V Heyman (1985)
“It is preferable, in my view, that the law should develop novel categories incrementally and by analogy with established categories, rather than by a massive extension of a prima facie duty of care restrained only by undefinable (policy) considerations…”
What was happened in Caparo V Dickman (1990)?
Caparo plc made a takeover bid for a fidelity plc and so they relied on the information provided in the annual audited accounts. These were prepared by the the respondents auditors and were sent to the plaintiffs. The accounts JD been negligently prepared and falsely represented that fidelity plc was profitable when it wasn’t. The plaintiffs sued the auditors in negligence.
What was held in Caparo v Dickman (1992)?
The court of appeal held that as they were existing shareholders, the auditors owed a duty of care to Caparo. This was reversed by the House of Lords which held that there was no duty of care owed to the plaintiffs. The annual accounts were prepared under the companies act 1985 act to provide information, not for investment purpose. If a duty of care was bestowed upon the defendants it would open floodgates.
What principle was found in Caparo v Dickman (1990)?
The three ingredients all of equal important. The Caparo 3 Part test. 1. Foreseeability - What hold a hypothetical reasonable person have foreseen in the circumstances?
2. Proximity - was there a close and direct relationship between the parties.
3 - is it fair just and reasonable for the courts to impose a duty of care.
What happened in Kent v Griffiths?
The defendant the London Ambulance Service. C an asthmatic who suffered an attack. Her doctor phoned the ambulance however the ambulance took 38 minutes to come and the claimant suffered severe brain injury.
What was held in Kent v Griffith’s?
1 part of Caparo 3 part test - The reasonably foreseeability test. It was reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would suffer harm from failure of an ambulance to arrive. Therefore the ambulance service was held liable
What happened in Bourhill v Young?
A motorcyclist was fatally injured. C a pregnant wife fishwife was 15 yards away, but did not see the actual accident only the resulting blood. It caused shock and a miscarriage.
What was held in Bourhill v Young?
C was not owed a duty of care because it was not foreseeable that the accident would cause her to suffer such injuries as there was no proximity between C & D..
What happened in Hill v CC of West Yorkshire?
D, the police failed to catch the York Shire Ripper. c the mother of the last (13th) victim sued the police for negligence alleging inefficiency in the investigation. As they didn’t follow a lead that could have led to catching the ripper.
