LIABILITY IN NEGLIGENCE

HideShow resource information
DUTY OF CARE
defined in Donoghue V Stevenson as the 'neighbour principle'
1 of 5
CAPARO V DICKMAN
Modified the neighbour principle and introduced the tripartite test to decide if a duty of care is owed
2 of 5
(1st test) WAS THE INJURY OR DAMAGE REASONABLY FORESEEABLE?
In Jolley v Sutton- the injury to the young boys was forseeable. In Langley v Dray it was forseeable the police would e exposed to risk
3 of 5
(2nd test) WAS THERE A SUFFICIENT PROXIMITY BETWEEN THE CLAIMANT AND DEFENDANT?
In Bourhill v Young the woman was not in the immediate vicinity so was not owed a duty. In Mcloughlin v O'Brian, the claimant had a relationship with the injured so was owed a duty
4 of 5
(3rd test) WAS IT FAIR JUST AND REASONABLE TO IMPOSE A DUTY?
In Alcock v South Yorkshire Police, relatives who watched on TV were not owed a duty as it would open the floodgates. In Kent v Griffiths it was fair to impose a duty
5 of 5

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Modified the neighbour principle and introduced the tripartite test to decide if a duty of care is owed

Back

CAPARO V DICKMAN

Card 3

Front

In Jolley v Sutton- the injury to the young boys was forseeable. In Langley v Dray it was forseeable the police would e exposed to risk

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

In Bourhill v Young the woman was not in the immediate vicinity so was not owed a duty. In Mcloughlin v O'Brian, the claimant had a relationship with the injured so was owed a duty

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

In Alcock v South Yorkshire Police, relatives who watched on TV were not owed a duty as it would open the floodgates. In Kent v Griffiths it was fair to impose a duty

Back

Preview of the back of card 5

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

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