Duty of Care in Negligence

HideShow resource information
View mindmap
  • Duty of Care: Negligence in Tort
    • Three Requirements
      • 1. D owes a duty of care
      • 2. D breached his duty of care
      • 3. Because of that breach, C suffered actionable damage
    • Does D owe a Duty of Care?
      • Caparo v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
        • Three Stage Test: "Caparo Tripartite Test"
          • 1. "Would the reasonable man foresee the harm to that particular claimant?
          • 2. Proximity of relationship: "a reasonable area for the imposition of liability" Lord Oliver in Alcock
            • The type and seriousness of harm affects the area of liability. As does the relationship between D + C and the scope of the DoC
          • 3. Is it "Fair, Just and Reasonable" to impose liability? - Policy long stop
      • Three Stage Test: "Caparo Tripartite Test"
        • 1. "Would the reasonable man foresee the harm to that particular claimant?
        • 2. Proximity of relationship: "a reasonable area for the imposition of liability" Lord Oliver in Alcock
          • The type and seriousness of harm affects the area of liability. As does the relationship between D + C and the scope of the DoC
        • 3. Is it "Fair, Just and Reasonable" to impose liability? - Policy long stop
    • Policy Considerations
      • Misfeasance or Nonfeasance?
        • Nonfeasance - Pure Omissions
          • Lord Goff in Smith v Littlewoods [1987] - "Common Law does not impose liablilty for Pure Ommissions"
          • No Duty to rescue - The Ogopogo [1971] - A relationship of prior care must exist for there to be a duty to rescue
          • No general duty to prevent others from causing harm - Lamb v Camden LBC
            • 4 Situations where Liability can be imposed for the actions of a TP
              • 1. SR between D + C Stansbie v Thomas [1948]
              • 2. SR between D + TP Home Office v Dorset Yacht [1970
              • 3. Creating a Source of Danger sparked by TP - Haynes v Harwood [1935]
              • 4. Failure to take reasonable steps to abate a danger created by TP on D's premises. Clark Fixing Ltd v Dudley MBC [2001]
      • The Type of Defendant
        • Local Authorities
          • Objections to Imposing Authority
            • 1. Defensive Practices
            • 2. Expensive to Public
            • 3. Waste of LA time
            • 4. Distorts statutory protection
          • Just because an LA can do something doesn't mean it has a duty too - Stovin v Wise [1996]
          • Established Liability Scenarios:
            • 2. Health: Stovin v Wise [1996]
            • 1. Education: Phelps v Hilingdon LBC [2001]
            • 3. Where the LA has created the danger: Kane v New Forest LBC [2002]
        • Police
          • Liable for "operational negligence" which is damage caused by negligent performance of day to day activites
            • Rigby v CC of Northamptonshire Pollice - CS gas caused fire
          • Not liable for errors made in the course of fulfilling general duties of investigating and preventing crime
            • Hill v CC of West Yorkshire [1988] and the Van Colle and Smith Cases [2008] (Osman Threshold)
        • Fire Service are not liable as long as they don't make the situation worse and their attendance does not fulfill proximity
          • Capitol and Counties PLC v Hampshire CC [1997]
          • Same for Coastguard - OLL v SS of Home Dep [1997]
        • Ambulances are health  and not a rescue service - Kent v Griffith [2000]
        • Armed forces owe no duty of care in battle conditions but do in down time - Mulachy [1996] /Jebson [2000]
        • Advisory bodies (as they are volunteers) get the relaxed Hill Criteria - Marc Rich & Co [1996]
        • Judges cannot be sued (Sirros v Moore [1996] but Lawyers can Hall v Simons [2002]
  • Local Authorities
    • Objections to Imposing Authority
      • 1. Defensive Practices
      • 2. Expensive to Public
      • 3. Waste of LA time
      • 4. Distorts statutory protection
    • Just because an LA can do something doesn't mean it has a duty too - Stovin v Wise [1996]
    • Established Liability Scenarios:
      • 2. Health: Stovin v Wise [1996]
      • 1. Education: Phelps v Hilingdon LBC [2001]
      • 3. Where the LA has created the danger: Kane v New Forest LBC [2002]

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Tort Law - Negligence resources »