Duty of care
- Created by: study-shauna
- Created on: 15-04-18 12:21
View mindmap
- Duty of Care
- The legal test was established in Caparo v Dickman.
- Was damage reasonably foreseeable?
- Yes - Kent v Griffiths - it was reasonably foreseeable that further damage would be caused by the ambulance being late.
- No - Top v London County Bus - it wasn't reasonably foreseeable that by leaving the keys to the bus, someone would be killed.
- Was there sufficient proximity between the claimant and the defendant? (Proximity = time, space or relationship)
- Yes - Osman V Ferguson - since the police knew about the issue, they had a proximate relationship.
- No - Bowhill v Young - she wasn't in the space or time of the accident.
- Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?
- No - Hill - they're a public servant.
- Yes - Capital and Counties - the firefighters were incompetent in their actions.
- Was damage reasonably foreseeable?
- The legal test was established in Caparo v Dickman.
Comments
No comments have yet been made