Law04 - Duty Of Care

Definition of duty of care:

One person has a responsibilty to take proper care not to injure or cause loss to another.

HOW to establish duty:

The House of Lords developed a single test to decide when one person owes a duty to another. This step was taken in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson.

Courts were quick to see a duty of care existed in reoccurring circumstances:

• A manufacturer of goods owes a duty of care to the consumer of the goods.
• A user of the road owes a duty to other users on the road.
• A professional person owes a duty to his client to practise his profession properly.
• An employer owes his employees a duty to keep them safe in the workplace.

Duty of care can be extended to cover new circumstances. The courts have adopted a restrictive approach, following the decision in Caparo v Dickman.

Duty of care exists if:

• It is reasonably foreseeable to the defendant, that his negligence will cause injury, damage or loss to the claimant.
• There is a relationship of close proximity between the two parties.
• It would be just, reasonable and fair to impose liability.

Criticisms of the three part test:

• It is not precise as it's difficult to know what fair, just and reasonable entails.
• Some elements involved overlap.

Therefore, the courts will also consider the following questions of policy:

• Which party is in the better position to buy insurance.
• Whether the claimant should have responsibility to look after themselves.
• Whether it is likely that a new duty will prevent future activities.

Case examples of the reasoning in these decisions:

• Watson v British Boxing Board
• Calvert v William Hill