Duty of Care

• Donoghue v Stevenson: "You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour".

  The Neighbour Principle.
• Test from Caparo v Dickman:

  1. Was the damage or harm reasonably foreseeable?
  2. Was there sufficient proximity between parties?
  3. Is it fair, just, and reasonable to impose liability on that defendant?
• The Caparo v Dickman test is not always necessary. Robinson v CCWY said that "where there exists an established ground of liability, there is no need to apply the third stage of the Caparo v Dickman test".
• Foreseeability: Would a reasonable person in the defendant's position have foreseen that someone in the claimant's position might be injured?
• Kent v Griffiths: It was reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would suffer.
• Proximity: Closeness by time and space or relationship. However, relationship will only be relevant if they are not in the same place at the same time.
• McLoughlin v O'Brien: Proximity
• Bourhill v Young: Not proximate
• The courts will look at the facts of a case and decide if the imposition of duty of care is fair, just, and reasonable.
• Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire: Not reasonable to impose a duty of care.
• Capco v Hampshire County Council: Reasonable to impose a duty of care.