Negligence (Duty of Care) Flashcards
relationship between two parties in negligence duty of care
doctor and patient
employer and employee
business and consumer
Donoghue v Stevenson in duty of care
duty of care could extend to a ‘neighbour’ and created general liability in negligence
Donoghue v Stevenson case
facts: the claimant was Mrs Donoghue who drank the ginger beer. Before this case, a contract claim mightve been brought to the café owner, but Mrs Donoghue wanted to claim against the manufacturer of the ginger beer for negligence.
Lord Atkin said people must take reasonable care to avoid acts (or omissions) which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.
test for who is your neighbour (Donoghue v Stevenson)
“Who then, in law, is my neighbour?
Persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought to have them in my contemplation as being affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions in question”
Caparo v Dickman for duty of care
the neighbour principle was used successfully for many years but it wasnt sufficient to deal with new situations.
Judges used this principle and decided if it was in the interests of society to create a duty between the parties in each case.
Caparo Test in duty of care
it’s used when finding liability in ‘new’ areas
Caparo Test:
- Is there a sufficiently close (or proximate) relationship between the claimant and the defendant?
- Could a reasonable person see that some damage or harm is foreseeable to someone in the claimants position?
- Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?
Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire Police
Facts: Mrs Robinson was knocked over by 2 police officers whilst they were arresting a suspect. She was 76 at the time and frail so was injured in the incident.
The Police argued they were exempt from a negligence claim as per the Hill case.
Held: there was a duty of care and they were liable
Principle of Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
the Caparo test doesnt have to be applied in every case. courts should look at existing authorities to identify relationships through analogy.
Caparo is only to be applied in new and novel situations
3 elements for a negligence claim
duty of care
breach of duty
D caused harm
3 parts to Duty of Care test
proximate relationship
harm is reasonably foreseeable
fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty
Caparo v Dickman
facts: Caparo brought an action against auditors claiming they were negligent in certifying accounts.
held: D didnt owe the claimant a duty of care, and the House of Lords (now Supreme Court) set out a three stage test (Caparo test)
