- Created by: Han11
- Created on: 19-06-19 15:46
Duty of care:
· Statutory duty - created by act parliament e.g. failure stop accident under Road Traffic Act 1988.
· Contractual duty - Pittwood, level crossing guard failed shut gates killed.
· Duty because of relationship - Gibbins and Proctor,starved child death father duty as a parent.
· Duty undertaken voluntarily - Stone + Dobinson,sister moved in died anorexia, guilty manslaughter assumed duty care when moved in.
· Duty through one’s official position - Dytham,police officer watched man beaten, did nothing did not report it.
· Set in motion chain events - Miller,set fire mattress squat + did nothing, guilty arson.
· Duty of doctors - Bland,Hillsborough victim, persistent vegetative state doctors allowed to stop treatment if in patient’s best interest.
· Neighbour principle - Donoghue v Stevenson- Courts decide who owed a duty of care.
· Caparo test - Proximity three-part test. Caparo v Dickman.
1). Was damage reasonably foreseeable?
2). Is there proximity between the claimant + respondent?
3). Is it fair just and reasonable to impose the duty?
R was an accountant who did the accounts for a company making it look as though it was in profit. Actually it wasn’t. The claimant then took over the business believing it was a good business. They then sued the respondent when they found out it wasn’t. They found in favour of the respondent.
Proximity physical and relationship.
· Kent v Griffiths- Ambulance got lost + failed to attend the claimant who was suffering from an asthma attack, he consequently suffered a repertory arrest.
· Bourhill v Young - Motorbike accident pregnant women went around corner to see what was happening. Unable to sue as made herself by physically closer.
· Mcloughlin v O’Brien - Victims family member went to visit them in hospital + they were in a very bad accident suffered shock depression + personality change. Respondent did owe duty of care to claimant.
· Hill v Chief Constable West Yorkshire Police - Last Yorkshire ripper victim. Police had enough evidence but failed make arrest. Mother claimed police owed duty of care. Held relationship between police + victim not close enough.
· Did the R act as a ‘reasonable person’ would have done in that situation? Objective test exceptions:
· Professional - Bolam v FBHMC, C suffering depression + he went for ECT. The doctors didn’t give him muscle relaxants + he suffered a broken pelvis. One body of research said he should have been given them + one body said he shouldn’t. No breach not liable. Does the R actions fall below the standard of a competent professional? Is there a body of research to support their actions?
· Learners to be judged as a ‘competent person’- Nettleship v Westonlearner driver breached duty of care despite only being a learner, negligent.
· Children +…