Duty of care

Duty of care

This was first established in
1. DONOGHUE V STEVENSON
  1. Lord Atkin stated that we should have a duty of care if we can reasonably forsee our actions affecting those closest, and directly affected by our actions
    1. This is called the NEIGHBOUR PRINCIPLE
The neighbour principle went on to be developed into a 3 part test in
1. CAPARO V DICKMAN
THE THREE PART TEST IS
1. 1. Were the consequences of the defendants actions reasonably foreseeable?
  1. LANGLEY V DRAY
    1. Where it was reasonably forseeable that there would be a crash if Langley sped up in pursuit of a criminal
2. 3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?
  1. HILL V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WEST YORKSHIRE
    1. This case was not taken to court as a matter of policy because doing so would open the floodgates to too many claims.
  2. POLICY DECISIONS: where courts are reluctant to impose a duty of care on certain public bodies because it would open the floodgates to thousands of similar cases which would waste time and public funds
3. 2. Was there sufficient proximity between the claimant and the defendant in terms of time, space, and relationship?
  1. BOURHILL V YOUNG
    1. Where there was not sufficient proximity between a pregnant fishwife and a car accident she claimed cause her to have a miscarraige

Resource summary

	Created by elissamansley about 11 years ago