Duty of Care Flashcards
Caparo Industries v Diskman 1990
New test for establishing a duty of care.
3 part test:
1) Was it reasonably foreseeable that D’s conduct would harm C?
2) Relationship of proximity between C and D?
3) Fair, just and reasonable for the law to impose a duty?
Accounts published by defendant were negligent and so the claimants sued in negligence. Claim failed as no duty of care.
Lord Bridge rejected Donoghue v Stevenson and Anns v Merton London Borough Council tests for duty of care. Too narrow, need to also be fair and reasonable to impose duty.
Bourhill v Young 1943
Caparo test 1) was it reasonably foreseeable that D’s conduct would harm C?
No foresight so no duty of care.
Mrs Bourhill saw Young’s body and tried to sue him for negligence. Caused her to give birth to a stillborn.
Palmer v Tees Health Authority 1999
Caparo test 2) relationship of proximity between C and D?
There was insufficient proximity between the hospital and the child murdered and assaulted by the out-patient.
Robinson v Chief Constable v West Yorkshire Police 2018
Caparo test 3) fair, just, and reasonable for the law to impose a duty?
The police cannot be sued in negligence apart from exceptional circumstances.
Police officers did not owe the woman a duty of care, they knocked her over when chasing suspected drug dealer.
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 1989
No duty of police.
Grounds that the police were negligent in catching a serial murderer. The court said that they did their best, even the police will make mistakes from time to time.
Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 2000
In custody, attempted suicide earlier so the police were liable for later suicide.
Stovin v Wise 1996
Duty of care - omissions.
No liability for omissions - nonfeasance. Lord Hoffman explained that omissions require different treatment from positive conduct.
Stovin did not slow down, so Wise crashed into his vehicle.
Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis 1955
An exception to the general rule on omissions = overturned by the Caparo test = high degree of proximity required. D has responsibility or control over C or a third party.
Teachers were found to have responsibility over the children.
Costello v CC Northumbria Police 1999
An exception to the general rule on omissions = assumption of responsibility by D for C.
Police inspector failsd to go to woman’s assistance when she was attacked by a prisoner in the cell.
Capital & Counties plc & Hampshire CC 1997
An exception to the general rule on omissions = D has created or adopted an existing risk.
3 joint appeals against emergency fire services. Negligent responses on call outs.
1 appeal upheld, liable if actions made the fire worse.
X v Bedfordshire County Council 1995
Courts take a restrictive approach to the duty of care of public bodies. They often take the viewpoint that public bodies are not liable.
The council was found not to have a common law duty to take care of the children abused.
Mulcahy v MOD 1996
Public bodies - one service man owes no duty to another in combat conditions. The commander negligently fired the gun, which adversely affected the plaintiff’s hearing.
Kent v Griffiths 2001
Public bodies - delay in arrival of ambulance.
London Ambulance service was liable for being unjustifiably slow (took 38 minutes to arrive), by which time the claimant had suffered a respiratory arrest.
OLL Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport 1997
Coastguard failed to respond after capsizing. Does not owe a duty of care in respect of rescue operations unless activity leads to greater injury than would have otherwise occurred. So claim was dismissed.
Sawyer and Simmons 1996
Fell of bar stool in pub onto broken glass.
The staff had a system where they checked for glass every 20 minutes. It was a busy Saturday lunchtime.
The court said that the duty of the pub was to have a reasonable system for checking and their system sounds good - it is difficult to effectively check every 20 minutes.
