Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
DUTY OF CARE
Learning Objectives
At the end of this topic you should be able to: (a)have an overview of the history of negligence; (b) describe the function of duty of care in negligence; (c) appreciate the way duty of care has been defined and developed; and (d) apply the principles of duty of care in a new situations.
Definition
The term 'negligence' has 2 different meanings It refers to the condition or state of mind of a person at a given moment in time. In this sense, the word means 'recklessness' or 'carelessness'. Negligence is a name of an independent tort.
Legal definition
Winfield the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage, undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff. Lord Wright in Loghelly Iron & Coal v M'Mullan 'negligence means more than heedless or careless conduct. It properly connotes the complex concept of duty, breach and damage thereby suffered by the person to whom the duty was owing'.
3 principal elements
Duty of care Breach of duty Damage/injury resulting from that breach - The damage must not be too remote.
Pre-Donoghue v Stevenson
The 1st attempt to formulate a general principle was made by Lord Esher in Heaven v. Pender (1883). The P was a ship painter in the D's dock. A scaffolding erected by the D which the P was using gave away and the P was injured. Held since there was no contractual relationship between the parties, the action could not be maintained.
The ratio of D v S
The House of Lord held that the D being manufacturer of the ginger beer, owed a duty of care to the P, as the ultimate consumer of the drink. This duty was to take reasonable care to ensure that the bottle did not contain any substance which was likely to cause injury to anyone who purchases it in due course
Neighbour principle
Lord Atkin in his dictum (dicta) enunciated what is known is Neighbour principle The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law you must not injure your neighbour, and the lawyers question who is my neighbour receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably forsee would be likely to injure your neighbour..
Cont.
Who then, in the law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in my contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omission which are called in question.
Significance of D v S
D v S laid the foundation of the law of negligence. The most important aspects of the case are Negligence is recognized as a separate tort An action for negligence can exist whether or not there is a contract between the parties it destroyed the privity fallacy It introduced a general test to determine the existence of a duty of care using neighbour principle which is based on reasonable foreseeability and proximity of relationship.
Fact
Seven borstal boys had escaped from an island where they were undergoing training. The escape was due to the negligence of the officers who were in bed. The boys caused damage to the P's yacht. The P sued the Home office. Issue whether the home office and its officers owed any duty of care to the owner of the yacht. (Damage was caused by a 3rd party)
Decision
The court observed - 'when a new point emerges, one should ask not whether it is covered by authority but whether recognized principle apply to it.' Held the duty of care exists in such circumstances.
Foreseeability
The test of foreseeability is objective i.e. what a reasonable person could have been expected to foresee. The P does not have to be individually identifiable for the D to be expected to forsee the risk of harming them. It is sufficient if the P falls within a category of people to whom a risk of harm was foreseeable. E.g the end user of a product.
Proximity of relationship
Basically refers to the closeness of the relationship between the defendant and the claimant. It does not necessarily mean physical closeness. The degree of closeness differs according to the type of damage and other factors.
Caparo v Dickman
Caparo introduces a new approach in deciding a duty of care called incremental approach. In using the incremental approach in determining the existence of duty of care(a)the P must point to a direct precedent (authority or to a closely analogous precedent in which a duty of care has or has not been imposed.)
Cont.
(b) In new cases in which no relevant authority exist, the court shall apply the three factors (i) Foreseeability (ii) Proximity (iii) Public policy
Public policy
Public policy extends to moral, social, economic and political factors. Even though a duty of care is found to exist on grounds of foreseeability and proximity, liability is nonetheless excluded on grounds of public policy.
DECISION
The House of Lords held that there was no duty on the part of the police towards general public to arrest an unidentified criminal. It would be contrary to public policy if such a duty was imposed upon them.
Rondel v Worsley
Held the advocates, whether barristers or solicitors, were immune from a claim for negligence by a disappointed client in respect of the manner in which a case was conducted in court. (litigation) This immunity is founded on public policy. Does not apply to other aspects of lawyers job.
Decision
The New York Court of Appeal rejected P claim for damages, holding that if any wrong had been committed, it had not been committed against the P, because she was not a foreseeable victim of the railway companys negligence. According to the jury, the P was beyond the range of foreseeable peril
Bourhill v Young
The D motor-cyclist was killed in a crash caused by his own negligence. The P heard the crash but did not see it. She only saw the scene of the accident after the Ds body had been removed. She suffered nervous shock and sued the D.
Decision
The House of Lords held the D not liable because he did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care. Although it was foreseeable that negligent driving might endanger other road users, the particular injury to the plaintiff was not foreseeable.
Judgement
The House of Lords held that the D liable. Although their warning was sufficient for normal person, it was inadequate for blind people. They should foresee that not all road users are normal-sighted person.
Actionable Omissions
Another factor in deciding the existence of duty of care is whether the act is in the form of commission (positive act) or omission (negative act). As a general principle omission does not give rise to a duty of care. The principle is that a person should not harm others but he is not under a duty to do something for the benefit of another.
Stovin v Wise
The P was involved in a road accident at a dangerous junction. The question arose whether the local authority, which had resolved to carry out improvement to the junction, could be liable for its failure to do so. By a 3:2 majority, the House of Lords held that the local authority was not liable for its omission to act. It had a statutory power to improve the junction, but not a duty to do so.
Actionable
Omission
(Exception to the
defendant negligently causes or permits a source of danger to be created which is then interfered by third party
general principle)
dDf knew or had means of knowledge that a third party was creating a danger on his property and failed to take reasonable steps to abate
Duty of care
Foreseeability Proximity Policy fair, just and reasonable Nature of conduct act or omission Type of plt Type of Df Type of damage Whether it was caused by the Df or a 3rd party