Duty of Care Flashcards
(11 cards)
DOC
Idea is used to establish a legal relationship between the c and d.
DOC - Case
Donoghue v Stevenson - the person owed a DOC by d is their neighbour. It is not a person living next door, but anyone ought to have in mind who is affected by a negligent act/negligence (Lord Atkin).
This is to avoid reasonably forseeable harm.
3 part test for DOC
The Caparo test must be satisfied (all 3):
1) Was damage/harm reasonably forseeable?
2) Is there a sufficiently proximate relationship between c and d?
3) Is it fair/just/reasonable to impose the duty?
The Caparo test - 1) Was damage/harm reasonably forseeable?
D’s acts are ones that can be foreseen by the reasonable person to cause damage to anyone in c’s position. An objetive test that assumes the regular person knows a lot. This doesn’t need an argument from the d, c benefits from this part of the test the most.
The Caparo test - 1) Was damage/harm reasonably forseeable? - cases
Kent v Griffths - reasonably foreseeable
Glasgow Corporation v Muir - not reasonably froreseeable
The Caparo test - 2) Is there a sufficiently proximate relationship between c and d?
Even if the harm is reasonably forseeable, a DOC will only exist if the relationship is suffcient .
This is proximity in:
- time and space
- relationship to the person injured by d.
The Caparo test - 2) Is there a sufficiently proximate relationship between c and d? - cases
Bourhill v Young - insufficient proximity when incident occured
McLoughlin v O’Brian - proximity can extend to those who come whithin immediate immediate aftermath of the event.
The Caparo test - 3) Is it fair/just/reasonable to impose the duty?
Allows the courts to consider if the law ought to impose a DOC. When it’s fair/just/reasonable to impose a DOC:
- Brings in the public policy test, whereby public bodies are not liable in negligence
- Prevents the floodgates of litigation opening, usually through judicial precedent.
The Caparo test - 3) Is it fair/just/reasonable to impose the duty? - cases
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire - DOC is not owed by public bodies (police)
Mitchell v Glasgow City Council - it’s unfair to impose DOC where proper actions had been taken for the general good
DOC - judical precedent - case and POL
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police - normally, the Caparo test would need to be established in order for DOC to be owed from d to c. However, this case states that where precedent has arisen in previous cases, this can be used to prove a duty exists.
DOC - judical precedent - relationship cases
Bolan - doctor and patient
Singh - tenant and landlord
Litchfeild - owner and crew of ship
Khan v Khan - drug dealer and client
Finlay - scout master and scout
Edwards - parents and children
Nettleship v Weston - Road users with other road users
Fitzgerald v Lane and Patel - diver and pedestrian
Wacker - if c’s safety is reliant on d
Miller - if a state of affairs was created
Evans - if a responsability is willingly taken on
