Chapter 2 Pt 1 - Duty of Care

Question 1

What is the three stage test established in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]?

Answer 1

1 - was the risk of injury or harm reasonably foreseeable
2 - was there sufficient proximity between the parties
3 - is it fair, just and reasonable on public policy grounds to impose a duty of care

Question 2

What is the ‘neighbour’ principle formulated in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]?

Answer 2

Reasonable care must be taken to avoid an act or omission which would likely harm your neighbour

Question 3

What must a claimant prove to satisfy the reasonable foreseeability test of Caparo Industries plc v Dickman?

Answer 3

That it was reasonably foreseeable that there was a risk of them suffering injury or harm if the defendant did something negligent.

Question 4

What is the basic objective test in relation to foreseeability in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman?

Answer 4

If a reasonable person could foresee the risk, then a duty of care is owed

Question 5

What case is the authority for the principle that a defendant will not be liable for an omission to act?

Answer 5

Smith v Littlewoods (Smith and Others v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987]).

Question 6

What is illustrated by Nettleship v Warren [1971] regarding proximity?

Answer 6

That proximity can arise out of physical proximity.

Question 7

What is illustrated by Chadwick v British Railway Board [1967] regarding proximity?

Answer 7

Legal proximity may also arise from a closeness in relationship, in this example where the claimant (Chadwick) suffered shock after rescuing passengers in a crash.

Question 8

When is proximity readily implied by the court?

Answer 8

Where physical harm to the claimant or their property has occurred

Question 9

What is pure economic loss?

Answer 9

Where a claimant does not suffer physical harm or damage to their property, but suffers economic loss due to the carelessness of the defendant

Question 10

What is a case law example where there was no duty of care due to the proximity of the parties being insufficient?

Answer 10

Topp v London Country Bus Ltd [1993] (bus driver not liable for death of claimant’s wife when joyrider killed her after stealing bus he left unlocked)

Question 11

What is a case law example where a duty of care was established due to sufficient proximity of the parties?

Answer 11

Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] (injury to boxers during a fight is foreseeable)

Question 12

What is a case law example where the court did not consider it fair, just and reasonable to impose liability, despite there being foreseeability and proximity?

Answer 12

L & Another v Reading Borough Council and Others [2007]

Question 13

What is the modern approach to determining if there is a duty of care, as stated by Lord Reed in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018].

Answer 13

Consider if there is any existing precedent as a starting point. If it is a novel situation, closest existing analogies should be considered and reasons for and against imposing liability should be weighed up to decide if imposing the duty would be fair, just and reasonable.

Question 14

What is ‘policy’ defined as in tort law?

Answer 14

Non-legal considerations underpinning legal decisions

Question 15

What are the three groups of policy principles?

Answer 15

1. Those relating to statutory authorities
2. Those which may open floodgates to other similar claims
3. Those involving harm to claimant rescuers

Question 16

In relation to policy and statutory authorities, what general approach was shown in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988]?

Answer 16

That it is not fair, just and reasonable to impose broad duties on public authorities (i.e. a duty of care to all potential victims of crime imposed on the police)

Question 17

What are the two key differences in the approach to public law claims against the police when made under the Human Rights Act 1998?

Answer 17

The public policy reasons which exempt the police from a common law duty of care do not extend to HRA claims. The aim of compensation under HRA is to compensate for infringement of rights, rather than for losses as in negligence claims.

Question 18

Which case shows there is not a blanket immunity for police against negligence claims?

Answer 18

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] (in which the claimant, an innocent bystander, was injured during an arrest and the court held the police owed him a duty of care)

Question 19

What was clarified in Poole Borough Council v GN & Another [2019] in relation to the duty of a local authority?

Answer 19

A duty is owed by local authorities to protect children from third party harm. The principles in Robinson should be followed, and a distinction made between acts and omissions.

Question 20

What is the general rule in regard to a claimant rescuer?

Answer 20

A defendant owes a duty of care to a claimant rescuer, providing they acted as a reasonable person would in the situation.

Question 21

What happens if a claimant rescuer takes an unjustifiable risk in their rescue?

Answer 21

No duty of care is owed by the defendant

Question 22

What happens if a claimant rescuer creates a dangerous situation in their rescue?

Answer 22

They are liable for any foreseeable consequence of their actions