Duty of care 1

?
  • Created by: Zaynab
  • Created on: 23-12-20 10:42
View mindmap
  • Duty of care
    • what is meant by the neighbour principle?
      • principle of English law that says person should take reasonable care to avoid acts/ omissions that they can reasonably foresee will harm our 'neighbour'.
        • A neighbour is anyone in our contemplation when we are carrying out these acts/ omissions
    • Caparo v Dickman (1990)
      • 3 requirements for DoC emerged.
        • 1. was harm reasonably foreseeable?
          • Bourhill v Young (1943).  HoL held no foreseeability between Bourhill and Young.
        • 2. relationship is one of proximity
          • McLoughlin v O'Brian (1983). CoA held couldn't claim damages - no proximity in space and time between C and D.
          • Stovin v Wise (1943) defines proximity as a convenient shorthand for a relationship between 2 parties, makes it fair + reasonable that they should owe each other a  DoC.
        • 3. that it is fair, just and reasonable
      • Used whenever new situation comes before court.
      • seeks to limit growth of negligence
      • discourages people from becoming litigous
    • examples of where someone is owed a DoC
      • Teacher and student
    • when is someone liable for their negligence
      • 3. Breach of duty must cause foreseeable damage
      • 2. DoC must have been breached
      • 1. D must owe C a DoC
    • Breach of Duty
      • occurs when standard of care shown by D falls below standard which ordinary person would expect him/ her to show
        • D's behaviour judged objectively. Compared with another competent person in same role, carrying out same task
          • Learners
            • Judged against standards of reasonably competent person carrying out activity.
              • Wells v Cooper (1954). D was to be judged against standards of reasonably competent carpenter, but not against standards that would be expected of a professional carpenter working for reward. Was sort of a job that reasonable householder might do for himself + that was appropriate standard.
              • Nettleship v Weston (1971). Driver liable despite inexperience. Standard of care required all motorists is the same; that of reasonably competent driver.
      • In addition to looking at D's age, profession etc. Judge considers 4 risk factors to decide if BoDoC occured
        • 1. size of risk
        • 2. cost and practicality
        • 3. characteristic of C
        • 4. Public benefit
      • tests to determine BoDoC
        • 1. Has C any special characteristic which should be taken account of?
          • Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951). Employers held to have broken DoC to him.
          • 4. were risks known about at time of accident.
            • Roe v Minister of health (1954). foreseeability of harm = major factor in determining how reasonable person would act.
            • 5. public benefit to risk-taking?
              • Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (1954). Court decided fire service did not breach DoC to C because of emergency situation and utility of saving life outweighed need to take precautions
        • 2. what is size of risk?
          • Bolton v Stone (1951) - small risk.  Because of no. of times cricket balls hit out of ground, found that club done everything needed to in view of low risk, had not BoDoC.
            • Haley v London Electricity Board (1965) - High risk. Known that particular road used by no. of blind people, greater precautions should be taken, D breached DoC
        • 3. All appropriate precautions taken?
          • Latimer v AEC LTD (1953). Only way to completely prevent injury would've been close factory for period of time. unreasonable to expect owners to do this. Taken sufficient steps at time to prevent injury
    • Professional standards
      • the principles for professionals  established by asking 2 questions.
        • 1. Does conduct of D fall below standard of ordinary competent professional.
        • 2.Is there substantial body of opinion within profession that would support course taken by D? If so, D hasn't breached duty (the Bolam Test)
        • the Bolam test . If D can find body of other professional who would have acted in the same way as they did, D hadn't breached DoC

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all english legal system resources »