Duty of Care

• The case that decided a duty of care must be owed between the claimaint and the defendant was Donoghue and Stevenson
• From this case Lord Atkin developed the neighbour principle
• Caparo v Dickman then laid down the three part test

- The first part of the 3 part test asks whether the consequences of the defendants actions were reasonably foreseeable

- The case that illustrates this point is Langley v Dray, where it was reasonalby foreseeable that if the defendant sped up the car then the chasing police car would also increase his speed and could therefore be at risk of injury

- The second part of the test asks whether there was sufficient proximity between the claimant and the defendant in terms of time space and relationship

- The case that illustrates this point is Bourhill v Young where the claimant and the defendant did not have sufficient proximity as the pregnant claimaint voluntarily went to look at the car crash

- The final part of the three part test asks whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the defendant

- If the defendant is a member of the police, a judge, or the Ministry of Defence in a time of war, then it is not fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care

- The case that illustrates this test with respect to the police is the case of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, where it wasn't fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the police officer for not catching the Yorkshire Ripper in time to save the claimant's daughter

- The case that illustrates the test with respect to the ministry of defence is Mulcahy v Ministry of Defence