Duty of care
Cards (14)
- What is a tort?A ‘civil wrong’.
- Disputes are between?Individuals and/or businesses.
- What’s the likely remedy for negligence?To provide damages (monetary compensation) to the individual who has suffered harm.
- Origin case?Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
- The neighbour principle?Must take care to avoid acts or omissions you can reasonably foresee that are likely to injure your neighbour (anyone likely to be feted by your actions.)
- Neighbour principle case?Donoghue v Stevenson
- There is no single definitive test to establish a duty of care.
- The case of Robin v West Yorkshire Police clarified the posits on establishing a duty of care.
- The Duty of Care?Firstly, look for a statutory duty of care (e.g. under the Road Traffic Act 1989)If there is no Act covering the situation, then look for an existing precedent (e.g. doctor an patient), or by analogy (e.g. we could extend dr and patient to nurses and patients, or dentist and patient, etc.)If it is a novel situation (new), then the Camaro test must be applied.
- The Caparo Test?
- Tripartite test for a duty of care refined the ‘neighbour principle‘ - Caparo v Dickman
- The harm to C must be reasonably foreseeable
- There must be proximity between the D and C in time, space or legal relationship
- It must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on D.
- Kent v Griffiths - it was reasonably foreseeable that someone waiting for an ambulance would suffer more harm if the ambulance was late or failed to arrive.
- 2. Bourhill v Young - C was not there at the scene at the time of the accident and she had no legal relationship with the motorcyclist, so there was no proximity.
- 3. This allows courts to make public policy decisions to protect the emergency services, or to prevent the floodgates opening and too many similar claims overwhelming the courts.
- 3. Hill v CC West Yorkshire?It was not fair to impose on police to every potential victim of a crime - anybody could be the next victim.