Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Duty of Care - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Things to take into account for point 3: Floodgates (allowing a claim in a new area may flood the courts with claims), Crushing liability (allowing the claim could result in disproportionate damages to the wrong committed), Insurance (more likely to be held liable if the act was insured/should have been insured, as they more likely have the means to pay damages), Defensive Practices (if it is easy to make a claim it may lead to people acting in a socially undesirable way to avoid potential claims), Maintenance of high standards (may need to accept a claim so keep high standards amongst how we treat eachother)
  - - - Exceptions: Statutory Duty, Contractual duty (Stansbie v Troman), D has high level of control over C (Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis- parent/child, police/prisoner), Assumption of responsibility by D (Barrett v MOD, officer assumed responsibility for drunk soldier when started to care for him, had responsibility to get appropriate medical assistance), D created dangerous situation then failed to take steps to mitigate risk of danger (Goldman v Hargrove)
- - - - Stansbie v Troman- There was a contractual relationship between C and D, therefore D owed a duty to lock the property to prevent burglary by a third party
      - Home Office v Dorset Yacht AC- Where there is a particular risk of an identifiable third party over and above the public at large (and there is proximity between C and D) a duty is owed. Company supervising boys using C's yachts, knew they had a history of escape
      - Contrast: Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire- no duty will be owed where the victim is an unidentifiable victim from a big group. Where someone tries to claim on behalf of a victim against the police for not preventing the criminal causing harm (apprehending them), it will not succeed unless there was a specific risk to a known victim
      - Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria- a duty is owed to prevent harm for third party when police took statement from someone, they assumed responsibility to protect her from that information getting out and the criminal attacking her
      - Mitchell v Glasgow City Council- an identifiable victim alone is not enough, they must imply to take responsibility through words or conduct
      - Summary: D is responsible for a third party causing harm to another where C is an identifiable victim, at risk over and above the public at large, and D assumed responsibility for their safety
    - - Home Office v Dorset Yacht- D will owe a duty where D has sufficient control/supervision over the third party
      - Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire- no duty is owed where police do not know of the criminal's identity, not in police custody or under their control at the time
      - Palmer v Tees Health Authority- mental health facility did not have the patient under their care at the time so a duty was not owed
      - Summary: third party must be under the care/control of D when breach committed
    - - Stansbie v Troman- D will owe a duty where they have created a dangerous situation and not taken action to prevent it, like leaving C's door unlocked to be burgled by a third party