Tort of negligence - Duty of care

?
  • Created by: BegumF93
  • Created on: 11-05-17 16:01
Outline 'neighbour principle' coined by Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
'you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions, which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure, your neighbour'.
1 of 17
Who is a 'neighbour' for the purposes of Lord Atkin's neighbour principle?
Someone is who so 'directly' and 'closely' affected by the act/omission that the defendant ought to have them in contemplation when they commit the act/omission.
2 of 17
What is the three part test outlined in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990)?
The test is used to determine whether a novel duty situation has arisen. 1) Is there a reasonable foresight of harm. 2)Is there sufficient proximity of relationship. 3) is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.
3 of 17
In which case was it mentioned that novel duty situations should be developed incrementally and by analogy with established duty situations?
Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985)
4 of 17
Did the court find that the claimant was a reasonably foreseeable victim in the case of Bournhill v Young (1943)?
No, the court found that the claimant was not a reasonably foreseeable victim of the motorcycle accident, so no duty of care was owed to her.
5 of 17
Did the court decide that it was fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty in the case of Marc Richards & Co. AG v Bishop Marine Co. ltd (1996)?
No, the facts are that a shipping company negligently classified a ship as seaworthy. Nonetheless the court felt that it would not be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care because the company was a charitable organisation.
6 of 17
Why did the court feel it would not be fair just and reasonable to impose a duty on the police in the case of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989)?
Although it was foreseeable that the failure by the police to catch the Yorkshire Ripper could lead to further killings the HofL decided that the police did not owe a duty of care to any individual. They owed a duty of care to the public at large.
7 of 17
Why did the court feel that it was fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty in the case of Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria (no.1) (1997)?
The claimant in this case had approached the police and was reassured that her identity would be kept confidential. The police however failed to do this. The duty of care has arisen because she did not belong to an indeterminate class.
8 of 17
Did the court find that a duty of care was owed in the case of Stovin v Wise (1996)?
No, it was held that the authority owed no duty of care to the road users to alleviate the danger.
9 of 17
When will a duty of care arise in relation to omissions?
The general rule is that you do not owe a duty of care for your omissions however the exception to this rule is where there is a special relationship between the claimant and the defendant e.g lifeguard to swimmer.
10 of 17
Why did the court find that a duty was owed in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd (1970)?
The damage occurred to the yacht because the police officer had failed to act however the police had a 'special relationship' with the boys because they had control over them.
11 of 17
Why did the court decide that no duty was owed in Smith v Littlewoods Organisations Ltd (1987)?
The duty on the occupier would be wide if they were responsible for the actions of third parties entering their properties when they had no control over the parties. There was no special relationship.
12 of 17
Did the courts find that a duty of care had arisen in Camarthenshire CC v Lewis (1955)
Yes, the court held that the council owed a duty to prevent the child from endangering others.
13 of 17
Will a duty of care arise if a person who is not under a duty to act decides to act?
Yes if the person who is under no duty to act decides to act and in doing so makes matter worse. This was outlined in East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent (1941).
14 of 17
Why did the court decide to impose a duty in Kent v Griffiths (2001)?
The court held that once the ambulance service had answered the call for help they has assumed a duty to the patient.
15 of 17
When will a public body owe a duty of care? (distinction outlined in X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council (1995).
1) The way a statutory duty has been implemented = duty arises.2) The manner in which the public body exercised a discretion = duty will not arise (unless it was unreasonable = duty will arise) BUT if it concerns public policy = no duty.
16 of 17
What was the decision in Jain v Trent SHA (2009)?
where a statutory discretion is designed to protect a particular class of person, a duty will not arise towards anyone that is outside that group.
17 of 17

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Who is a 'neighbour' for the purposes of Lord Atkin's neighbour principle?

Back

Someone is who so 'directly' and 'closely' affected by the act/omission that the defendant ought to have them in contemplation when they commit the act/omission.

Card 3

Front

What is the three part test outlined in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990)?

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

In which case was it mentioned that novel duty situations should be developed incrementally and by analogy with established duty situations?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Did the court find that the claimant was a reasonably foreseeable victim in the case of Bournhill v Young (1943)?

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Tort of Negligence - Duty of Care resources »