Civil Liability

HideShow resource information

Duty of Care

Neighbouring Test: Donoghue v Stevenson 'you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likley to injure your neighbour.

Caparo Test: Caparo v Dickman (3 part test)

  • Foreseeability 
  • Proximity
  • Fair, Just and Reasonable

Foreseeability: Kent v Griffith 

Proximity: Bourhill v Young (Vacinity) 

McLouglin v O'Brien (Relationship)

Fair Just and Reasonable: policy that stops the 'flood gates of litigation' and protects public services

Capital Counties v Hampshire County Council - it was fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty 

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire - it was not fair just or reason to impose a duty 

1 of 3

Breach of Duty

Standard of Care: Reasonable Man - Roe v Minister of Health

Special Characteristic:

Children - Mullins v Richards

Professionals - Bolam v Barnet Hospital

Learners - Wells v Cooper and Nettleship v Weston

Risk Factors

  • Probability; if the probablity is higher than a great standard of care should be given (Bolton v Stone and Haley v LEB)
  • Magnitude; if the magnitude of harm is high then the standard of care need to be higher (Paris v Stepney)
  • Practicality of Precautions; the precautions taken need to meet the standards of care (Latimer v AEC)
  • Benefit of Risk; if the benefit of the risk is high a lower standard of care is taken to the risk and more towards the benefit (Watt v Hertfordshire County Council)
2 of 3


Damage (Factual Causation);

Barnett v Chelsea Kensington Hospital

Fairchild v Glenhaven (Multiple Causes)

Smith v Littlewoods (Intervening Acts)

Remoteness of Damage (Legal Causation)

The Wagon Mound

Crossley v Rawlinson

Bradford v Robinson Rentals

Types of Damage: Hughes v Lord Advocate

Thin Skull Rule: Smith v Leech Brian

3 of 3


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Law of Tort resources »