Duty of Care Model Answer

• Although initially a duty of care was established in Donoghue v Stevenson using the 'neighbour principle', the recent case of Robinson v Chief Constable has since updated the law by setting out two ways to prove a duty of care exists between a Defendant and Claimant.
• 1. If the relationship between the D and the C is one that is already recognised in law, then this is enough to prove a duty of care. For example; teacher-student (Mullins v Richards), doctor-patient (Bolam).
• However,

  2) When there is no previous similar case and it is a novel situation, the three-part Caparo test from Caparo v Dickman could be used to establish a duty of care.
• * To decide if a defendant owes a duty of care, the courts have adopted a three part test set out in Caparo v Dickman (1990) which the defendant must satisfy.
• *The first part of the Caparo test is foreseeability and it must be proven that a reasonable person in the D's position would have foreseen that someone in the claimant's position could have been injured. This is an objective test which means it focuses on the reasonable man rather than what the D foresaw (Kent v Griffiths).
• *Secondly proximity (a close relationship) between the defendant and claimant must be satisfied. There are two types of proximity: physical proximity where the Defendant and Claimant are close in time and space (Bourhill v Young). Whilst legal proximity looks at the legal relationship between the defendant and claimant (Watson v BBBC).
• Finally, it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care. In some cases, there are policy reasons why it is not fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care so sometimes public authorities are exempt (Hill). However, this does depend on the circumstances as it was fair, just and reasonable to impose a DOC in MPC v Reeves where the police knew he was a suicide risk and he hung himself in his cell. The police had a duty of care to protect the man from self-harm.