AQA AS Tort: Duty of Care key cases

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Sahar
  • Created on: 20-04-13 14:48
Duty of care: In this case the defendant drank ginger beer bought by her friend, a decomposing snail had fallen out and she suffered shock and gastro-entiritis
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
1 of 7
Duty of care: this case established the three-part test which included: 1- is the damage/harm reasonably foreseeable? 2- is there sufficient proximity between the defendant and claimant? 3- is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
Caparo v Dickman (1990)
2 of 7
Reasonably foreseeable: a doctor called an ambulance for a patient suffering from an asthma attack. The ambulance replied but failed to arrive on time resulting in the patient suffering a heart attack which could have been prevented
Kent v Griffiths (2000)
3 of 7
Not foreseeable: an accident had taken place 50 yards away from the claimant who was 8 months pregnant. she later saw the blood and suffered a shock and her baby was stillborn. However the motorcyclist did not owe her a duty of care.
Bourhill v Young (1943)
4 of 7
Proximity: police knew of a risk to a school boy being stalked. The boys father was murdered and the boy was injured by the attacker. There was sufficient proximity between the police and the victim.
Osman v Ferguson (1993)
5 of 7
Fair, just and reasonable: this case pointed out that imposing a duty on police could drop their standards and make them police in a defensive way. The case included the mother of the last victim of the Yorkshire ripper claiming against the police.
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1990)
6 of 7
Proximity: in this case at a scene of a fire a fire officer ordered the sprinklers to be turned off which caused the fire to spread and cause more serious damage. It was recognised fair, just and reasonable to place a duty of care against them
Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire County Council (1997)
7 of 7

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Caparo v Dickman (1990)

Back

Duty of care: this case established the three-part test which included: 1- is the damage/harm reasonably foreseeable? 2- is there sufficient proximity between the defendant and claimant? 3- is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?

Card 3

Front

Kent v Griffiths (2000)

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Bourhill v Young (1943)

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Osman v Ferguson (1993)

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

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