Duty of care Flashcards
(13 cards)
Assumption of duty (established by common law)
Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis: school and teacher (D) to pupil (C) for his physical welfare and educational needs (especially young people)
Mitchell v Glasgow CC: road-user (D) towards other road-users; employers (D) who cause physical injuries to their employees (C)
Silverlink Trains Ltd v Collins-Williamson: Transport operator (D) to passenger (C)
Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors: healthcare practitioner to patient
Ellis v Home Office: jailers/custodians towards prisoners
Occupiers
Caparo framework
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (Lord Bridge)
Reasonable foreseeability
Proximity
Policy
Reasonable foreseeability (Caparo #1)
Harm to C (or class to which C is part) was actually foreseen, or reasonably foreseeable by D
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd: objective test; real risk, not a mere possibility
Haley v London Electricity Board: foreseeable risk to that particular class of claimants (also statistical evidence could be used to help in the analysis)
Unborn claimants- statute
Proximity (Caparo #2)
Sutherland SC v Heyman (Australian case) outlined the types, approved for the purposes of English Law by Lord Nicholls in Stovin v Wise: geographical, temporal, relational, causal
Harrison v Technical Sign Co Ltd: D did NOT owe C DoC, harm did not have to do with his inspection
Geary v JD Wetherspoon: no DoC
policy (caparo #3)
is it fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care (no legal or public policy reasons preclude the imposition of a DoC)
Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis: children do not owe DoC
Hill v CC of West Yorkshire Police: core principle no DoC owed by police
Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire Police: police CAN owe a DoC- omissions v positive acts
Michael v CC of South Wales Police: pre-identified victim, no duty owed by police
Rigby v CC of Northamptonshire: positive act (police)
Jessup J in Horsley v MacLaren: someone can sit on the beach smoking a cigarette and watch their neighbour drown with no liability in negligence- no Bad Samaritan laws
Baker v TE Hopkins & Sons Ltd: DoC was owed
Cattley v St John Ambulance Brigade: Good Samaritan owes DoC the second they intervene
Hedley Byrne voluntary assumption of responsibility/reliance
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd: D, possessed of special skill, undertook to apply that skill for the assistance of C, who relied upon that skill and requires - an assumption of responsibility by D towards C to conduct himself with reasonable care and/or skill AND a consequential and reciprocal reliance by C upon D in so conducting himself
Assumption of responsibility (Hedley Byrne #1)
by D to C to conduct himself with reasonable care and/or skill
Phelps v Hillingdon LBC: DoC imposed by law
Kent v Griffiths: there was a voluntary assumption of responsibility as soon as the operator said ‘an ambulance is on its way’
Reciprocal reliance (Hedley Byrne #2)
by C upon D in so conducting himself
Kent v Griffiths: detrimental reliance
Incremental test
Lord Bridge in Caparo: novel scenarios should develop incrementally, by close analogy to established categories- courts should ‘hug the coastline’ of established DoCs
Michael v South Wales Police: majority held the case was not sufficiently analogous to Kent- police didn’t give a time frame and C did not have to stay in the flat
doctor’s duty to warn
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board: ‘reasonable person’ test- what would a reasonable person in C’s position want to be told about?
Chester v Afshar: 1-2% risk is significant but anything less than 0.5% no
Pearce v United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust: draws in both the reasonable person test + the fact that 0.1%-0.2% of risk is too small for a reasonable person to be warned about
Rogers v Whitaker: Australian case, questions and anxiety expressed by C showed that this was the worst outcome for her and she would want to have been told
Pure omission categories
Robinson v West Yorkshire Police: “the common law does not generally impose liability for pure omissions”
Stovin v Wise: where omissions are incorporated into a course of conduct they can create DoCs
Occupiers
Creating inherent danger near a roadway
Duty to supervise/control TP who harms C
Where D creates an inherent danger on or near a roadway
D must have created the danger and the danger must be inherent
Haynes v Harwood: C was owed a DoC by D, who created the source of danger by not tethering the horse near the road, and then allowing it to be interfered with (it was reasonably foreseeable)
Topp v London Country Bus (South West) Ltd: no DoC- nothing inherently dangerous about a parked bus, it required human intervention to make it dangerous
Failing to control, supervise, or detain third parties
Is governed by the tests, particularly Caparo
Hill v CC of West Yorkshire Police: acknowledged D’s liability to C is not derivative or dependant on any duty to TP
Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office: DoC owed
Carmarthenshire CC v Lews: kindergarten did owe C a DoC
Palmer v Tees HA: no DoC
Mitchell v Glasgow CC: no DoC, mainly for policy reasons
Proximity considerations: degree of control D exercised over TP; C within reach or at risk of TP; D’s knowledge of TP’s propensities; temporal proximity
