First 353 words of the document:
Firstly, to establish negligence there a) Damage was reasonably Damage was not reasonably b) There wa s a legal proximity in
must first be a Duty of Care (DOC). foreseeable in Kent v Griffiths where foreseeable in Bourhill v Young, Donoghue v Stephenson between
an ambulance arrived late to an where the claimant was not involved manufacturer and consumer, where
The modern day test was laid down in accident without explanation, and in an accident, but walked over to a decomposing snail fell out of a
the House of Lords in Caparo v the victim of an asthma attack then see the aftermath and miscarried. ginger beer and V suffered severe
Dickman , and involves 3 questions: suffered a heart attack. food poisoning.
a) whether the consequences of Ds acts
were reasonably foreseeable ;
b) Whether there is a relationship of
proximity between the parties i.e. legal
c) Whether it is fair, just and
reasonable to impose a duty of care.
There was a physical proximity in There was no proximity in Caparo v c) It was not fair, just and reasonable It was fair, just and reasonable for
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Club , Dickman , where a firm of for the police to owe a DOC to the the fire service to owe a DOC in
between the prison officers and accountants falsely said a business general public in the Hill's Case, Capital & Counties v Hampshire CC ,
surrounding people. Officers took was making profits despite making a where a police released "the where an officer ordered the
young offenders to a trip to an loss. Shareholders tried to sue Yorkshire ripper" who went on to kill sprinklers to be turned off in a
island, and late at night stole a yacht however there was no proximity so a young woman, as they could not factory after a fire, despite the fire
and tried to sail away but crashed. lost the case. protect everyone. not being fully out.