Duty of Care

  • Created by: Sahar
  • Created on: 03-02-15 16:16


Donoghue v Stevenson Take care of those in your contemplation 

Caparo test:

1- Reasonably foreseeable- objective 

Kent v Griffiths- ambulance ./ Jolly v Sutton BC- abandoned boat ./ Topp- stolen bus X

2- Proximity - time, space or relationship 

McLoughlin v O'Brien- family accident shock ./ Osam v Ferguson- stalker/police ./ Bourhill v Young- stillborn shock X Hill v CCWY- Ripper victim/police X

3. Fair, just and reasonable, public policy

Hill v CCWY- defensive policing X Osman v Fergusen- floodgates/police XMPC- prison suicide/police ./ Capital v Counties- fire sprinklers ./

1 of 3


'Reasonable man standard of care , objective Blyth v Birmingham waterworks 

Nettleship- learner driver/competent driver

Mullin- children against same age/sex

Bolam/bolitho test- professionals against a reasonable person in the same profession and level 

Degree of risk:

Bolton v Stone- fence X Roe- anaesthetic X Haley-bling, barrier ./

Characteristics of claimant:

Paris v Stepney- one eye higher care ./

Practicality of taking precautions:

Latimer v AEC-saedust, close X Bolton v Stone- fence enough X Paris v Stepney- goggles not expensive ./

Emergency-lower standard, Watt-fiefighters travelling X

2 of 3


Negligent act must have caused damage, and type of damage must be foreseeable

Causation: 'but for' 

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington- watchmen poisoning X Wilsher v Essex- blind, 6 possible causes X 'Fairchild exception'- mesothelima any of previous employers- fair for one to be liable ./

Remoteness of damage: type foreseeable 

The wagon mound- oil X Smith v Leech Brain- cancer, burn foreseeable ./ Hughes v Lord Advocate- parafin lamps explosion not foreseeable but burns was ./

Res ispa loquitor

Scott v London- falling bag ./ Mahon v Osborne- operation wool ./ 

3 of 3


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

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