Duty of care
- Created by: Michaela
- Created on: 29-01-13 23:16
View mindmap
- Duty of Care
- One person has a responsibility to take proper care, not to injure or cause loss to another
- House of Lords developed a single test to decide when one person owes a duty to another.
- This step was taken in the case Donoghue V Stevenson (1932)- Person owes a duty to anyone who is his neighbour.
- Neighbour is a person the defendant should reasonably be thinking of when considering his actions
- This step was taken in the case Donoghue V Stevenson (1932)- Person owes a duty to anyone who is his neighbour.
- Courts recognise that this new duty of care exsisted in a number of commonly circumstances. E.g. Manufacturer of goods owes a duty to ultimate consumer of the goods.
- E.g. Manufacturer of goods owes a duty to ultimate consumer of the goods. This was seen in the case Donoghue V Stevenson. Claimant fell ill after drinking ginger beer. It was posioned because it contained a decomposed snail, claimant hadnt seen and it was in an opaque bottle.
- Assuming facts could be proved,claimant could sue the manufacturer of the ginger beer as the manufacturer owed a duty to ensure that its products were safe to drink
- Proffessional person e.g. solicitor owes duty to his proffesion properly
- Employer owes his employees a duty to keep them safe in the workplace. Duty has been supplanted by health and safety legislation
- E.g. Manufacturer of goods owes a duty to ultimate consumer of the goods. This was seen in the case Donoghue V Stevenson. Claimant fell ill after drinking ginger beer. It was posioned because it contained a decomposed snail, claimant hadnt seen and it was in an opaque bottle.
- Establishing a duty of care
- Using Caparo V Dickman (1990) duty of care exists if:
- 1. Reasonably foreseeable to defendant that his negligence will cause injury, damage or loss to claimant
- 2. Relationship of sufficent proximity between the two
- 3. Would be fair, just and resonable to impose liability
- Test if set for guidelines to help the court to rech a sensible decision as to when a duty should be introduced to a new area of liability
- Court will consider questions of policy.
- Which party is in the better position to buy insurance
- Its likely a new duty will prevent accidents in the future, simply dicourage people from undertaking activities fir fear if being sued.
- Claimant should have a reaponsibility to look after himself
- E.g Watson V British Board of Control (2001)- Claimant Boxer, injuries, following a fight, organised by defendant, made worse because proper medical equipment and doctors trained to use it were not immediately available at the ring side. Court decided that the defendant owed a duty of care to provide proper medical back up because injuris in a boxing match were foreseeable. Defendant promoted and profited from the actvity and defendant controlled the organisation of the event.
- Using Caparo V Dickman (1990) duty of care exists if:
Comments
No comments have yet been made