Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Negligence - Duty of Care (:red_flag: Caparo v Dickman: 3 part test (1)…
Negligence - Duty of Care
Basic Information
negligence could extend to a very wide number of circumstances, leading to a great deal of litigation
to narrow this down, courts have developed the concept of a duty of care
first identified in :red_flag: Donoghue v Stevenson
Lord Atkin's Neighbour Principle
:red_flag: Donoghue v Stevenson
defined a duty of care
you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour
neighbour = a person you should reasonably have in mind
reasonably = an ordinary, reasonable person would be taking account of that other person in the circumstance
legal principle: manufacturers owe a duty of care to all who consume their products
:red_flag: Caparo v Dickman: 3 part test
1) were the consequences of D's conduct reasonably foreseeable?
2) was there sufficient proximity between the two parties?
3) is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?
each of the 3 parts must be satisfied to ensure D owes a duty of care
objective test
Step 1
consequences = injury or property damage
question is whether a reasonable person (ordinary) would have foreseen (realised/anticipated) that a person in C's position would suffer the loss
not concerned with what D thought/realised
:red_flag: Langley v Dray
Step 2
proximity = closeness
reduces the number of people to whom D owes a duty of care
consists of time or space or relationship
:red_flag: Bourhill v Young
:red_flag: McLoughlin v O'Brien
Step 3
not about personal opinion, but the best interests of society
courts looking at the wider public policy implications of the case in an attempt to avoid the 'floodgates of litigation'
to avoid public bodies spending time and public resources fighting legal cases instead of carrying out work
applies to:
judges
:red_flag: Sirros v Moore
police
:red_flag: Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
do owe a duty in some limited circumstances
:red_flag: Reeves v Commissioner of Police
ministry of defence