Negligence:

• • Negligence was defined by Blyth v Birmingham water Works (1856) ​- ‘failing to do something which the reasonable person would do or do something which the reasonable person would not do’ 
• • Must establish a legal relationship between the parties. ​
  • ​Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) ​
• THE NEIGHBOUR PRINCIPLE :

  • Lord Atkin (in the House of Lords) set the test for when a person would be under a duty to another. He said, “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour” ​
  • Neighbour principle – not be taken literally.  The person who is owed a duty of care by the defendant is not the person living next door, but anyone who you ought to have in mind who might potentially be injured by your act or omission. 
• ROBINSON V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WEST YORKSHIRE  (2018) APPROACH:

  • No single definitive test to assess for duty of care ​
  • In the first instance look to apply an existing precedent or established principle where appropriate ​
  •  Vague law - If the case deals with novel or departs from a previous decision, develop the law incrementally and by analogy with existing precedents.  In doing so, consider legally significant features like whether it would be fair, just and reasonable to extend the duty of care. ​
• FAIR, JUST AND REASONABLE TO IMPOSE A DUTY ​

  The courts are often reluctant to impose a duty of care on emergency services and public authorities such as the police. ​

  • In Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1990) it was pointed out that imposing a duty of care on the police and then allowing people to be able to sue them, would lead police to be carried out in a defensive way and lead to lower standards of policing. 
• The Caparo three stage test:

  • The neighbour principle was used until it was replaced by a three-part test in the case of Caparo v Dickman (1990) ​

  1. Was damage or harm reasonably foreseen? ​
  2. Is there a sufficiently proximate (close) relationship between the claimant and the defendant? ​
  3. Is it fair and reasonable to impose a duty? 

  All three parts have to satisfied.
• Foreseeability:

  • Kent v Griffiths (2000) ​
• Take your victim as you find him: 

   If the injury is reasonably foreseeable, but is much more serious because the claimant had a pre-existing condition, then the defendant is liable for all the subsequent conditions.  In negligence this is known as ‘the eggshell skull rule’. 

   

  Smith v Leech Brain and Co (1962)
• Type of injury to be foreseeable: 

   The defendant will be liable if the type of injury was reasonably foreseeable, even though the precise way in which it occurred was not. 

   

   Bradford v Robinson Rentals (1967)

   

   Even though the damage suffered was unusual, some injury from the conditions and the cold was foreseeable. 

   

  Type of injury not foreseeable seen in Doughy v Turner Asbestos (1964)
• Remoteness of damage: 

   The damage must not become too remote from the breach of duty by the defendant.  The rule comes from an Australian case decided by the Privy Council: The Wagon Mound (1961)

   

   Although damage done to the wharf was reasonably foreseeable, fire damage was not.  This type of damage was too remote from the original negligent act. 

   

  The test for remoteness of damage from this case is that the injury must be reasonably foreseeable – any loss or damage that the reasonable person should predict or expect from his negligent act or omission.