Duty of Care
Three stage test -Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman
Reasonable Foreseeability
Requirement for a Duty of Care
For Duty of Care there needs to be a degree of foreseeability of harm to others.
Revised the test for establishing a duty of care
3 tier test
Reasonable foreseeability of harm
Justice and Reasonable
Proximity between the parties
Proximity
Justice and Reasonable
Where justice and reasonableness are specifically referred to, it is usually because a case meets the requirements of foreseeability and proximity, but the courts believe there is a sound public policy reason for denying their claim. This is to prevent opening the ‘floodgates’
This concerns the relationship (if any) between the defendant and the claimant.
McFarlane v Tayside HB
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1988)
Neighbour Principle
Donoghue v Stevenson Created that mechanism for deciding when a legal duty of care should be owed to another.
Lord Atkin - Who in law is my neighbour
The courts must ask if a reasonable person in the would have foreseen the risk of damage.
It must be reasonably foreseeable that damage or injury would be caused to the particular defendant in the case or to a class of people to which they belong, rather than just to people in general.
Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad
However, it is enough that the claimant is part of a category of people who might foreseeably be affected be affected:
Haley v London Electricity Board
This does not mean that the defendant and claimant have to know each other, but that the situations they were both in meant that the defendant could reasonably be expected to foresee that his or her actions could cause damage to the claimant.