Duty of care

• Courts hierarchy

  • Supreme court
  • Court of Appeal
  • High court (Queen Bench, Family and Chancery)
  • Country court (Small claims, fast track and multi track)
• (Robinson)

  • In the first instance the courts look to apply an existing precedent or statutory authority (EG Road Traffic Act 1988)
  • They will use the Caparo test if dealing with a novel case or are being invited to depart from a previous authority
• (Caparo v Dickman) - 3 part test

  1. There must be reasonable foresight of harm
  2. Sufficient proximity of relationship
  3. It must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty
• Reasonable foreseeable care - (Kent v Griffiths)

  We ask whether our acts or omissions are reasonably likely to harm another. If this happens the first stage in the Caparo test is established.
• Proximity - (Bourhill v Young)

  • Relationship between the claimant and defendant
  • Spatial proximity
  • Proximity over time
  • Even if harm is reasonable forseeable liability will only arise if the relationship between the claimant and defendant is sufficiently proximate
• Fair, Just and Reasonable - (Hill v Chief Constable)

  • Even when harm was foreseeable and there exists proximity between parties it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty
  • The courts have been very reluctant to impose a duty on public services