Duty of care

• Duty of care can be established through: AN EXISTING PRECEDENT e.g doctor owes patient duty of care.
• Donaghue V Stevenson - Neighbour Principle - landmark tort case which established that a duty of care is owed in establishments.
• Caparo V Dickman Three Tier test - Reasonably foreseeable, proximity and Fair, Just and Reasonable.
• Tier 1 - Was there reasonable foresight of harm to a person in the claimant's position. Kent V Griffiths - C was having Asthma Attack and despite repeated assurances it did not arrive. C suffered serious respiratory failure. Defendant liable as court held there was reasonable foresight of harm - predictable that it would have happened to a reasonable person.
• Tier 2 - Was there sufficient proximity between the claimant and the defendant. Bourhill V Young - Claimant heard sound of an accident and later walked over after it had occurred. Shocked by blood; suffered miscarriage. There was no proximity as too much distance and time delay from accident. (could also be used for reasonably foreseeable).
• Proximity because Claimant has a particular relationship with Defendant which is recognised by law. Might be that claimant is defendants professional customer.
• Tier 3 - Is it Fair,just and reasonable for a duty to be owed - based on public policy. Hill v Chief Constable West Yorkshire: Claimant was mother of final victim of Yorkshire ripper - sued the police claiming her daughter would not have been murdered if police investigation had been better handled. It was not fair for a duty to be owed as would open floodgates for more cases, awards for damages would largely reduce money available for protecting the public at large.
• Where police chase injury to claimant, they will owe a duty of care: Robinson V Chief constable West Yorkshire. Police officers, when trying to arrest a suspect, caused injury to innocent passer (claimant). Duty of care was established as negligent conduct towards C. Personal injury could not be denied for policy reasons.