duty of care - A GRADE ANSWER

HideShow resource information

The major case of Donoghue v Stevenson initially laid down the criteria of imposing a duty of care through the 'neighbouring test' where lord Atkin held that 'you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably forsee would be likely to injure your neighbour'. He proceeded to define a 'neighbour' as 'persons who are so closely and directly affected by my acts that i ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when i am directing my mind to the acts or omissions'.                                           From this principle it can be seen that in order for a duty of care to be owed there must be reasonable foresight of harm to persons who it is reasonable to forsee might be harmed by a persons acts or omissions. This rule was modified by the case of Caparo v Dickman. This case laid down the present three questions which must be addressed in order for a duty of care to be imposed:

1. Was damage or harm reasonably forseeable?

2. Is there sufficient proximity (legal relationship) between the claimant and the defendant?

3. Is it fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?

1. Was damage or harm reasonably forseeable?

The issue of forseeability simply means that a



How long did it take you to write this. Bearing in mind this will preferably be a 7/8 mark question, so really should only spend 6-7 minutes writing it

Similar Law resources:

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