Tort Law: Duty of Care key cases

  • Created by: Abisola
  • Created on: 29-05-15 12:54
View mindmap
  • Duty of care
    • Forseeable claimant
      • Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad: firewords
      • Bournhill v Young: The pregnant fish wife
      • Home office v Dorset Yatch: prison escapees
      • Maguire v Harland and Wolf: wife absestos
    • Proximity
      • Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire: sprinklers off - emergency calls
      • Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police
    • Fair, just and reasonable
      • MacFarlane v Tayside Health: healthy child
      • Hiill v Chef Constable of West Yorkshire
      • Osman v UK: Teacher
      • Van Colle and Smith:
      • X v Bedfordshire
        • Z v UK
        • D v East Berkshire
      • Marc Rich & Co AG v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd




A basic fault element for all offenses octordle was proposed in the 1989 Criminal Code Draft. A key distinction between negligent and reckless is that negligent people are often protected from criminal culpability ; reckless people, on the other hand, are held accountable for their actions.



In the proposed Criminal Code of 1989, a general element of fault for all crimes was envisaged. People are often exempt from criminal liability when they are negligent, but those who act recklessly are usually called to account for their behavior.


Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Tort resources »