1. Was loss or damage to the victim reasonably foreseeable?
In Jolly v Sutton Borough Council (2000), the court held that it was foreseable that a young boy would try and fix a boat. And it was also foreseeable that they boy may be injured by it.
In Langley v Dray (1998) it was foreseeable that the police car would try and keep up with the criminlas that they are following by increasing their speed which could result in a injury.
2. Was their suffecient proximity?
This was shown in Bournhill v Young (1943), In this case the defendant was in a car accident, a woman who was 8 months pregnant was in the area, although she did not see the crash and although she was not in the nearby area, she heard the sound and she also saw blodd on the floor, this caused her to suffer from shock and deliver a stillborn baby.
This was shown in McLoghin v O'Brian (1983) In this case the defendant was showcked and suffered nervous shock when she saw her children and husband in hospital after they were involved in a serioud accident.
3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?
Floodgate argument stated that becuase their may be too many claims, they cannot accept one case if similar cases can arise
Comments
No comments have yet been made