Established in case of Caparo v Dickman. Was damage or loss foreseeable?- the reasonable person would have foreseen some damage to C at time of negligence. Kent V Griffiths- ambulance failed to arrive to take man to hospital suffering an asthma attack. As result he had heart attack, this was foreseeable. Is there sufficient proximity?- closeness in terms of time, space and relationship. eg. Bourhill V Young- Man drove faster when police car chased him. Caused police car to crash but there was not enough closeness. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?- 'policy test' to limit opening 'floodgates'. Mostly yes except emergency services as this could restirict their attemot to help. eg. Mulcahy V MOD- soldier suffered damage to hearing but no duty was imposed because of policy issue. If yes to all three duty is established.
Comments
No comments have yet been made