Negligence

Negligence 

There are three stages to negligence, duty of care, breach of duty and resulting damage. 

Duty of care 

The idea of duty of care in the tort of negligence has developed through judges decisions in cases. The main case for duty of care is the case of Donoghue v Stevenson. 

Donoghue v Stevenson – in this case, mrs Donoghue went to the café with her friend and the friend bought her a ginger beer. This was in a dark glass so that the contents could not be seen. After drinking some, she poured the rest out and found that there was a decomposing snap and she became ill as a result. 

The case of Donoghue v Stevenson established the broad principles of liability, however there have been a number of changes in regards to this. 

In Caparo v Dickman, the ‘neighbour test’ was replaced by the three stage test:- 

-        Was the damage foreseeable? 

-        Is there a sufficient proximate relationship between the claimant and defendant? 

-        Is it fair, just and reasonable? 

Foreseeable: whether It is reasonably foreseeable that the other person will be affected by the 

actions of the person who acted negligently depends on the facts of the case. An example of this would be Kent v Griffiths. 

Kent v Griffiths – a doctor called for an ambulance to take a person having a serious asthma attack to hospital. They sent an ambulance, however, the ambulance took thirty minutes to arrive, and as a result the patient suffered from a heart attack. 

In this case, it was reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would suffer harm from the failure of the ambulance to arrive. 

In some cases, the courts have decided that it is not reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would suffer harm which can be seen through the case of Bourhill v Young. 

Bourhill v Young – in this case, a motorcyclist was going too fast, crashed and died. Mrs Bourhil l( 8 months pregnant ) heard the accident and saw the blood, she went into shock and her baby was stillborn. She claimed against the motorcyclist estate. 

In this case, the courts decided that the motorcyclist did not owe her a duty of care as he could now have reasonably foreseen that she would be affected by his negligent driving. (Not foreseeable) 

Proximity: even If harm is caused is reasonably foreseeable, a duty of care will only exist if the relationship of the defendant and claimant is sufficiently close. For example, Hill v Chief Constable Of West Yorkshire. 

Hill v Chief Constable Of West Yorkshire – in this case, there had been a serial killer killing women in the area and the claimants daughter was the killers last victim before he was caught and by the time of her death, the police had already had enough information to arrest him but failed to do so and the mother claimed that the police owed a duty of care however the HofL…