AS Law02 - Tort - Duty of Care

THE OMISSION TO DO SOMETHING WHICH THE PRUDENT AND REASONABLE MAN WOULD NOT DO!

BLYTH V BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS CO.

BARON ALDERSON!

• What is owed between 2 members of society if an act or omission is carried out; this is used to avoid any negative outcomes of such events.

• Donoghue v Stevenson 1928 (snail in a bottle)
  • neighbour principle; Lord Atkin
    • "must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which yoou can reasonably foresee would likely injure youre neighbour"
    • Neighbour - " person who are so closely and directly affected by your act..."

• Courts no longer use neighbour principle to prove duty of care!
  • Now use  3 part caparo test (Caparo V Dickman 1990)
    • is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?

Caparo v Dickman 1990 (inaccurate audit accounts led to large losses in company investments)

• Foreseeability - is it foreseeable by the D that V would suffer a loss?
  • Kent v Griffiths 2000 (delayed ambulance when called 999)
    • waiting for an ambulance when its delayed; one can reasonably foresee further injury
• Proximity - is there sufficient proximity; time, space or relationship
  • Bourhill v Young 1943 - proximity via relationship due to miscarriage of her child, she was not in sufficient space proximity of the tram accident.
  • McLoughlin v O'Brien 1983 - proximity through relationship due to the shock suffered from seeing her family post car crash, V was not in the crash itself.
• Reasonableness - is it fair, just and reasonable to impose duty of care
  • Hill V CCWY 1988 (yorkshire ripper) unfair to impose for potential victims due to event not having occured and magnitude was too great.
  • MPC v Reeves 2001 (suicide in prison) - known suicide risk - not fair
  • Orange v CCWY 2001 (suicide in prison) not known risk - fair