S2 LESSON 2 (WEEK 2)

Question 1

In 1990 what happen to the futy of care principle and why

Answer 1

re evalution due to the case of Caparo and Dickman

Question 2

Brief summar y of caparo and Dickman 1990

Answer 2

Dickman audited accounts didn’t do a good job

accounts now made available to the public

Caparo firm invest nearly all theri money 0 company fails

Caparo loses lots of money and wanna pursue the auditors Dickman

Question 3

in the caparo and dickman case from dickmans POV who were the neighbours

Answer 3

anyone who looked at those accounts - as they were sufficiently close in proximity

Question 4

what was the question that was raised as a result of the caparo v dickman case

Answer 4

Does firm have responsibility to all those who use the accounts to invest based on the accounts you audtied

Question 5

what was the re evaluaiton of the cpaapro and dickman case mad eby the courts

Answer 5

the caparo test

Question 6

the caparo test refrmes what and adds what

Answer 6

the donoghue and stevenson neigh bour principle

and adds a few more checks

Question 7

what are the 3 checks in the cparo test

Answer 7

HARM HAS TO BE FORESEEABLE

PROXIMITY BETWEEN CLAIMIANT AND DEFENDANT SHOULD BE THERE

JUST FAIR AND REASONABLE

Question 8

What does Harm has to be forseeable mean

Answer 8

was damage to injury or claimant forseable given the circumnstances

could you imagine it would happen

if you couldnt it is unforseeable and unforseeable harm is not your responsiblity

Question 9

what does PROXIMITY BETWEEN CLAIMANT AND DEFENDANT MEAN i.e. court says only repsonible if

Answer 9

Court says only responsible for people if sufficient closeness of relationship

Question 10

Where is the proximity checkpoint also found

Answer 10

in the neighbour principle - people are so closely affected you ought to reasonably have them in your contemplation

Question 11

what do other definitnos of procimity say it means

Answer 11

closeness in time, space , place

(but its an arguable area )

Question 12

sometimes we ave a public policy stop gap what does this mean

Answer 12

law found to be working perfectly logically and academically but not working perfectly in terms of operating a state

so the court says a duty of care only imposed on someone if - JUST AND REASONABLE - to impose a duty of care in public interest

Question 13

okay so if someone owes you a duty of care and it was foreseaable if courts dont beieve it will assist the broaer picture of operation of the state what will hppen

Answer 13

no redress/compensation from harm caused

Question 14

foreseaablity o f harm case

Answer 14

HOME OFFICE V DORSET YACHT Co 1970

Question 15

HOME OFFICE V DORSET YACH CO 1970

Answer 15

group of male young offenders

taken to island as part of rehab/sentence

island surrounded by boats (famous for it)

guards left kids unsupervised and went for drink when think young off sleeping

they escape from island in a yacht as mnay

crash into other boats and cause lots of damge

owners not happy and look for someone to seek copensation from q

Question 16

who do yacht owners pursue and why

Answer 16

home office as got overarching repsonisbilty for young offenders and for administration of justice

young men got no money and guards got no money

Question 17

do the caparo test on the home office v dorset yach tco that the court did

Answer 17

forseeable - yes - forseeable if put unsupervised group of young offenderson an island surrounded by £££ boats they might bring some boats to harm

proximity - yes - close relationship between home office and those that lost money through yacht damges as direct vitims of home office lack/of actions

just and reasonable to impsoe a duty - yes as awnt state to be properly supervising its young off so worthwhile to find responsibility

home office responsible for damage caused by young offenders who werent supervised

Question 18

as we need 3/3 in caparo test give example fo hwen home office wouldn’t be charged as this isn’t forseeable

Answer 18

e.g if were supervised at all times but still did yachts

not forseeable that if reamined in supervision they would casued damage

Question 19

what case do we use for priximity

Answer 19

BOURHILL V YOUNG 1943 - PREGGO FISHWIFE CASE

Question 20

BOURHILL V YOUNG 1943

Answer 20

Young drives motorcycle and recklessly crashes into car and killed in road

bourhill on bus hears large bang but dont see nathing

gets off to walk home and walks past scene of incidnet (body been removed)

she says at htis point she suffers nervous shock
goes home and has stillbirth baby

she seeks to pursue estate of mr younf

Question 21

what bourhills reasoning for pursuing the estate of Mr. Young

Answer 21

He should’ve had the people around him in mind when he was driving recklessly, he was responsible to bystanders and people who would encounter the scene
His actions have caused my damage

Question 23

did court find duty of care in bourhill and young case

Answer 23

no

Question 24

why didnt court find duty of care in bourhill and mr young case

Answer 24

no proximity in time and place

Question 25

give an exmaple of what could have changed the analysis of bourhill and young

Answer 25

if she knew ,r young/ saw the incident with her own eyes

Question 26

proximity is a questiton of

Answer 26

facts of individual case

Question 27

for proximity what needs to be evident

Answer 27

close proximtiy in time space place

Question 28

JUST REASONABEL (and FAIR - is interest in wider population rather than onoe individual perosons best interest) case?

Answer 28

HILL v CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WEST YORKSHIRE 1989

Question 29

HILL V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WEST YORKSHIRE 1989

Answer 29

serial killer PETER SUTCLIFF of women and girls lots of people had an encounnter w him so lots of evidence allowing them to come up with an E-fit which was clsoe to serial killer Mrs Hill found police had lots of opportunities to catch this man and they ddint - lakc of cross r eferencing evidence meant they were negligent - acts and omissions casued hatm to her daighter

Question 30

discuss how court assessed te hill v chief consti

Answer 30

FORSEEABILTY OF HARM - If police don't check there massive database of intelligence do we think serial killer may go on to kill many more people - yes PROXIMITY - do you owe family of victims duty of care not to kill their family memebers - yes Court not happy with the fair just and reasonableness of this imposition of duty They create a principle that says - although you may think foreseeable harm taking place you want to impose liability- is it in interest of wider society to do that - they say no

Question 31

why was it not in interest of widerr society in the hill v chief case

Answer 31

They say - yes there are negligence and failings if we impose this responsibility on the police we are gonna have a less successful police force for everyone casue - - Police gonna be v defensive about what they do - Might choose to collect less intelligence so don’t have to look thorugh so much - May get absolutely bogged down in claims Also the idea the police could be respsonsible to every perosn for a failure to catch someone who commited a crime not knowing who their speicifc next victim willl be is just too broad too big to cope with so state says no to duty fo car

Question 32

when would police have a responsiblity to protect us

Answer 32

If police do have a specific potential victim in contemplation they have a +ve repsonsiblitiy e.g. if police know you have an ex partner that Is v violent and you've reported them and told them you worried about that they got repsonsiblity to protect you as you identiifed as an indiviudla perosn at some risk of harm - so got some futies to indiviudal but not enormous duty to all potential victims of crime .

Question 33

to sum up what are hte cases for each stage of caparo test

Answer 33

forseability of harm - home office v yacht co proximity - bourhill v young jus reassonable fair - hill v chief constable

Question 34

what case demoonstrates extent people you encounter in hospital are repsonsible for your well being

Answer 34

Darnley v Croydon Health Servicces NHS Trust 2018 ofc it's croydon

Question 35

what happened in Darnley v Croydon Helath

Answer 35

darnley fight on night out got hit in head friend took him to A&E receptionsit told him it'll be a 6 hour wait he goes home and suffers big brian injury which he dont recover seeks to pursue hospital saying they had a duty of care to him as the parient who suffered the injury

Question 36

run through the court test on darnely v NHS Croydon

Answer 36

forseaable - is it forseeable if you leave early cause not been able to see A and E and you have head injury you might hae brain injury - yes sufficiently proximate - nurse mad ebig error as receptionsit told his friend ther was sa huge wait but there was rule a triage nurse/doctor must see you within 20minutes and darnley left and if he ha d knwn he wouldve stayed longer also nurse and patient to close relationship fair ust and reasonable to say ahd a duty of care - yah and imposed neglgience as fell sort of futy when they didnt explain that you were gonna be triaged

Question 37

in the darnley v croydon health services when would ther not hahve been a duty of care

Answer 37

if nurse explained to him there was gonna be a triage nurse to see him in 20 minutes but he left anyway as he free to make good and bad choices

Question 38

establishing a duty of care

Question 39

give an example of someone who owes a duty of care

Answer 39

motorist to otehr road suers

Question 40

in what context are we talking about duty of care

Answer 40

common law duty of care in a new situation where no duty of care like this been established in law before

Question 41

what test is a common law test in dealing w new situations

Answer 41

caparo test

Question 42

if thers not what two things do we go to the caparo test

Answer 42

if not a judicial president or statutory law setting out these things

Question 43

whats the metntal cheklist we go through when we wanna know if a duty of care is being estbalished

Answer 43

is there a duty of are already set out somewhere in law *statutory law* e.g parliament made some laws such as landords ar erepsonsibel to tenants if not there may be a duty of care that exists in common law e.g nettleship and western estbalishing drivers have a duty of care to each other i.e leartner driver repsonible to other road users and passengers at the same standard as a normal driver then if it not and its a new novel case we go to ther caparo 3 stage test

Question 44

sum up how we establish duty of care

Answer 44

check if got stautory duty of care common law duty of care if not and its new caparo 3 stage test