tort of negligence

Duty of care

• Donoghues friend bought drink of ginger beer.
• contents of drink contained decomposing snail.
• as she had not bought the drink she could not claim for her illness.
• however sued the manufacturers claiming they owed her a duty of care.

Duty of care

• because of this case the neighbour test was replaced by the 3-part test.

Reasonably foreseeable

• doctor called for ambulance to take a patient suffering from serious asthma attack.
• ambulance failed to arrive within a reasonable time.
• patient suffered heart attack which could have been avoided if taken to hospital earlier.
• it was reasonably foreseeable the claimant would suffer harm with failure of ambulance arriving.

Reasonably foreseeable

• boy aged 14 was attempting to fix an abandoned boat.
• whilst doing this the boat slipped and paralysed him.
• the boat belonged to the council by a block of flats.
• the council knew it was dangerous and kids were likely to play on it.
• the injury to the claimant was reasonably foreseeable.

Not forseeable

• A motorcyclist going too fast crashed into a car and died.
• heavily pregnant woman (bourhill) was 50 yards away, did not hear the crash.
• later she saw the blood on the floor, went into shock and her baby was stillborn.
• she tried to claim but the motorcyclist did not owe her a duty of care as it wasn't foreseeable this would happen. however he did owe a duty of care to the driver of the car with whom he collided.

Not foreseeable

• Driver left bus unattended with keys in the ignition.
• bus was stolen and driven dangerously causing an accident in which the claimant (topp) was injured.
• the damage was held not to be reasonably foreseeable.

Proximity and Fair, just and reasonable

• a serial killer had been murdering women in Yorkshire area.
• claimants daughter was last victim.
• police had enough info to arrest killer before he killed the claimants daughter.
• mother claimed police owed duty of care.
• relationship between victim and police was not proximate enough for the police to be under a duty of care.
• police knew there might be a further victim but didn't know who the victim would be.

Proximity

• police knew there was a risk of an attack on a schoolboy.
• the police had received complaints about the attackers behaviour.
• the boys farther was killed and the boy seriously injured.
• there was a proximate relation between police and victim and victims family.
• however case did not succeed as it was not seen as fair, just and reasonable to impose duty of care on the police.

Fair, just and reasonable

• fire brigade attended scene of a fire.
• a fire officer ordered the sprinkler systems in the building to be turned off.
• causing fire to spread and more serious damage.
• it was seen as fair,just and reasonable to recognise a duty of care against the fire brigade.

Breach of duty - degree of risk

• anaesthetic was kept in glass ampoule's. back then it was not known invisible cracks could occur in these glasses.
• so when the claimant was paralysed by contaminated anaesthetic which seeped through the glass, there was no breach.