Tort of Negligence

Revision cards for Tort of Negligence

HideShow resource information

Duty of Care

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

  • Drink bought by friend, contained a dead snail.
  • Taken ill
  • Law of contract could not be claimed because the friend had bought the drink
  • Manufacturers sued owing the woman a duty of care

"Neighbour Test"

  • Set out by the House of Lords to show when a duty of care is owed

Caparo 3 part test

  • Replaced the neighhbour test
  • Under Caparo v Dickman (1990)
  • Was damage or harm reasonably foreseeable?
  • Is there a suffieciently proximate relationship between the claimant and the defendant?
  • Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
1 of 5

Reasonably foreseeable

Kent v Griffiths (2000)

  • Patient suffering from asthma attack, ambulance called
  • Ambulance failed to arrive within a reasonable time with no reason
  • It was reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would suffer from the failure of the ambulance to arrive within a reasonable time

Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council (2000)

  • Boy aged 14, paralysed by a boat falling on top of him after attempting to repair
  • Boat was abandoned, belonging to the council
  • Council knew it was there and caused danger
  • House of Lords said the attempting to repair the boat was just as equal to playing on it
  • the injury was then reasonably foreseeable
2 of 5

Not foreseeable

Bourhill v Young (1943)

  • Motorcyclist was speeding and crashed into a car
  • Mrs Bourhill was pregnant and around 50yrds away from accident and did not see it
  • After she saw blood on the road and was in shock
  • Her baby was still born and blaimed it on the accident
  • She was not owed a duty of care as the motorcyclist could not have reasonably foreseen she would be affected
  • He did owe a duty of care to the car driver

Topp v London Country Bus (South West) Ltd (1993)

  • Driver left but unattended with keys left in the ignition
  • The bus was stolen and then caused an accident
  • The claimant was injured but it was not left to be reasonably foreseeable
3 of 5


Hill v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1990)

  • Serial Killer had been murdering women
  • The claimants daughter was the murderers last victim before being caught
  • The police had enough evidence to arrest him before the murder but didnt
  • They claimed the police owed them a duty of care to her daughter
  • But, relationship was found to be not sufficiently close as the police would have know who the next victim would be

Osman v Ferguson(1993)

  • Police knew about a risk of attack on a school boy
  • Complaints were made to the police about the attackers behaviour
  • The boys father was murdered by the attacker and the boy was left seriously injured
  • There was then a sifficiently close relationship between the police and the victim and the victim's family
4 of 5

Fair, Just and reasonable

(Courts reluctant to find that it is 'fair, just and reasonable' to impose a duty of care on authorities)

Hill v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire

  • imposing a duty on the police may cause policing to be of a lower standard
  • Where the police or other authority through there actions have created a new danger or increased the risk of that danger courts are more likely to hold that it is fair, just and reasonable

Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire county council (1997)

  • fire brigade anttended a fire scene
  • Sprinkler system was ordered to be turned off in the building
  • More damge was then caused
  • it was recognised it was fair, just and reasonable
5 of 5


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Law of Tort resources »