Duty of Care Flashcards
(22 cards)
Caparo Test
- Reasonable Foreseeability
- Proximity
- Policy
Reasonable Foreseeability
Roe v Minister of Health - Foreseeability is assessed based on knowledge available at the time of breach
Nettleship v Weston - Duty of care only owed to those individually-foreseeable victims of risk or harm
Proximity
Geographical, temporal, relational, causal
Hill v CC of West Yorkshire Police - Police did not have causal proximity to last victim of Ripper to owe a duty of care
Policy
Police: Police officer owed a duty of care to bystanders - Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire Police
Bad Samaritan: Bystanders who do not assist have no duty of care to owe - Smith v Littlewood
Children: Young children do not owe duty of care under Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis but may apply contributory negligence under Young v Kent to reduce damages
Voluntary Assumption of Responsibility Test
Origins in Hedley Byrne v Co, now covers negligent misstatements, personal injury and omissions
First stage of VART
Assumption of Responsibility
Second stage of VART
Kent v Griffiths - requires a detrimental reliance by claimant on this assumption i.e C did not seek alternatives
Biddick v Morcom - If no reliance, no VAR and thus no duty of care
Incremental Test
After applying the Caparo Test, analyse whether the duty imposed is too different from those previously imposed in case law - Courts tend to hug the coastline
S.1(1) The Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976
Child may sue 3rd parties for injuries suffered before birth
S.2 - Mothers
Cannot sue fathers
Duty of Doctor
Warn about material risks
Inherent Risk
Risks which are present regardless of how careful the doctor is - Doctor has duty to warn C about these
Types of Risks
Objectively Significant Risks
Subjectively Significant Risks
Montgomery Test for OSR
Montgomery Test
- How likely it is,
- How serious is the outcome
- Is it necessary?
- Other doctors say?
Montgomery for SSR
Risks may not be generally serious but may be serious to specific patients - Doctor has duty to find out if this is the case and alert patient of risks (i.e risk of infertility for desperate mother)
Pure Omissions
Poole BC v GN - Law does not impose a duty to act for omissions
Exceptions to Pure Omissions
- Duty of Occupier
- Haynes v Harwood
- Goldman v Hargrave
- Stansbie v Troman
Duty of Occupier
Exception to Pure Omission, property owners/occupiers have a duty to take care of people on their land
Haynes v Harwood
Exception to Pure Omission,
Creating a danger on the road and then claimant sustaining injuries when rescuing others creates a Duty of Care on D
Goldman v Hargrave
Where D knew or should have known that a third party was creating danger on his property and failed to take reasonable steps to abate it, duty to act is imposed
Stansbie v Troman
Where D assumed responsibility to C ‘to keep property secure’, a duty is imposed.
Michael v CC of South Wales Police
Police failed to protect victim after accidentally downgrading her 911 call to non-emergency - no duty of care owed as this was a pure omission.
Duty of Care: Try-Partite
If D had a degree of control of TP who they knew were a risk but still allowed to hurt C, C can sue as D had a duty of care
