Tort Law: Negligence (Duty Of care)

Winfield and Jolowicz: Negligence as a tort is a breach of a legal ______ to take care which causes damage to the claimant.

Historically, this case established the whole topic of NEGLIGENCE. Decomposed snail in the bottom of a ginger beer bottle...

• A. 

  Donoghue v Stevenson

• B. 

  Manufacturer v Consumer

• C. 

  Donoghue v M&S Cafe

• D. 

  Debenhams v Stevenson

The NEIGHBOUR PRINCIPLE is that; You must take [1 ] to avoid acts or omissions which you can [2 ] would be likely to injure your neighbour. Select the correct words to fill in the blanks

• A. 

  1 - some care

• B. 

  1 - reasonable care

• C. 

  2 - reasonable foresee

• D. 

  2 - foresee

A Duty of Care is already recognised in the following relationships:

1. EMPLOYER > EMPLOYEE
2. PROFESSIONAL ADVISOR > CLIENT
3. SCHOOL > PUPIL
4. DRIVER > PEDESTRIAN
5. DOCTOR > PATIENT

If the client doesn't fit into those categories; this case established a 3-stage test to establishing a duty...

• A. 

  Vowles v Evans

• B. 

  Margereson v JW Roberts Ltd

• C. 

  Caparo v Dickman

• D. 

  Watson v British Boxing Board of Control

The CAPARO three stage test includes:

1. REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY
2. PROXIMITY
3. JUSTICE

In this case, the factory owner was liable for the asbestos emitted from their premises causing mesothemioma as they "ought to have reasonably known/foreseen that asbestos dust escaping could cause harm to the people in exposed to it in the surrounding streets.

• A. 

  Margarets v Seddon

• B. 

  Margereson v JW Roberts

• C. 

  Page v Mariners Ltd

• D. 

  Davis v JD Williams

The CAPARO three stage test includes:

1. REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY
2. PROXIMITY
3. JUSTICE

In this case, the defendant (British Boxing Board of Control BBBC) was seen to have created a sufficient proximity (closeness in relationship) to the claimant boxer to have a duty to care properly for injuries sustained during the fight. The boxer suffered severe brain damage as a result of the inadequate ringside medical attention. Who was the boxer?

• A. 

  Michael Watson

• B. 

  Chris Eubank

• C. 

  Ricky Hatton

• D. 

  Errol Christie

The CAPARO three stage test includes:

1. REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY
2. PROXIMITY
3. JUSTICE

Would it be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the defendant in the circumstances? In this case it was 1) REASONABLY FORESEEABLE that the Rugby Referee not enforcing the rules could result in injury 2) The referee and player had REASONABLE PROXIMITY 3) It was FAIR, JUST and REASONABLE to impose a duty on the referee.

• A. 

  Vaughan v Menlove

• B. 

  Ultramares v Touche

• C. 

  Watson v BBBC

• D. 

  Vowles v Evans

Now we've covered the three stage test to establishing a DUTY. If there is no duty then an omission holds no liability. The example given in this case is - there is no duty to shout at a somebody who is about to walk off a cliff with his head in the air to warn them of their danger... This sets out the general principle that Joe Bloggs in the public has no duty to act for a stranger.

• A. 

  Donoghue v Stevenson

• B. 

  Costello v Cheif Constable of Northumbria

• C. 

  Yuen Ken Yeu v AG of Hong Kong

• D. 

  Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

So there is no general liability to act for a stranger in the public...(i.e. you can just stand and watch) Exceptions to this are:

1. CONTROL
2. ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY
3. CREATION OR ADOPTION OF RISKS

In this case, a teacher was said to have control of a child - who had been left for ten minutes; in which time the child left the premises onto a main road - a lorry swerved, crashed and the driver died.

• A. 

  Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis

• B. 

  Costello v CC of Northumbria

• C. 

  Goldman v Hargrave

• D. 

  Stansbie v Troman

So there is no general liability to act for a stranger in the public... Exceptions to this are:

1. CONTROL
2. ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY
3. CREATION OR ADOPTION OF RISKS

In this case, a female police constable was attacked by a woman prisoner at a police station - and the police inspector just watched... The police force was held (vicariously) liable for the police inspector failing to act despite assuming responsibility to help his colleague.

• A. 

  Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

• B. 

  Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria

• C. 

  Haynes v Harwood CC

• D. 

  Dulieu v White

So there is no general liability to act for a stranger in the public... Exceptions to this are:

1. CONTROL
2. ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY
3. CREATION OR ADOPTION OF RISKS

In this Australian case, a tree on a mans land was struck by lightening and caught fire. The tree was then cut down, and instead of extinguishing the fire with water, he left it to burn out. Wind re-ignited the fire and the fire spread onto neighbouring properties... He was seen to have adopted the risk by taking some steps. He also created a further risk by leaving the fire to burn out.

• A. 

  Haynes v Harwood

• B. 

  Stansible v Troman

• C. 

  Reeves v Australian County Council

• D. 

  Goldman v Hargrave

So you can be liable by not acting in some circumstances. Can you be ever liable for somebody elses actions?

• A. 

  Yes

• B. 

  No

Acts of Third Parties can make you liable in the following circumstances:

1. Where there is a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE CLAIMANT
2. a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE 3rd PARTY
3. CREATED A SOURCE OF DANGER
4. FAILING TO ABATE A KNOWN DANGER

The special relationship in this case was contractual between the claimant customer and defendant decorator. The decorator left the premises unsecured as he went to get more wallpaper. In this time, a theif entered and stole property. This contractual relationship was enough to make the decorator liable for the 3rd parties actions.

• A. 

  Haynes v Harwood

• B. 

  Stansbie v Troman

• C. 

  Smith v Littlewoods

• D. 

  Bourhill v Young

Acts of Third Parties can make you liable in the following circumstances:

1. Where there is a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE CLAIMANT
2. a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE 3rd PARTY
3. CREATED A SOURCE OF DANGER
4. FAILING TO ABATE A KNOWN DANGER

Seven boys escaped from a training camp where they stole the claimants boat and damaged other boats. The Borstal officers (training operator) were held liable for the actions of the 3rd party as they were under the officers care.

• A. 

  Home Office v Dorset Yacht

• B. 

  Home Office v Plymouth Yacht

• C. 

  Home Office v Brighton Yacht

• D. 

  Home Office v Poole Yacht

Acts of Third Parties can make you liable in the following circumstances:

1. Where there is a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE CLAIMANT
2. a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE 3rd PARTY
3. CREATED A SOURCE OF DANGER
4. FAILING TO ABATE A KNOWN DANGER

In this case, a hurd of horses bolted towards a busy street of people. A police officer saw the horses and tried to stop them, but sustained injuries as a result. The defendant horse-keeper was liable for the third parties (horses) actions by creating a source of danger.

• A. 

  Stansbie v Troman

• B. 

  Bourhill v Young

• C. 

  Dulieu v White

• D. 

  Haynes v Harwood

Acts of Third Parties can make you liable in the following circumstances:

1. Where there is a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE CLAIMANT
2. a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE 3rd PARTY
3. CREATED A SOURCE OF DANGER
4. FAILING TO ABATE A KNOWN DANGER

In this case, a disused cinema was set alight by vandals, damaging neighbouring properties. The cinema owner was not liable because he was not informed by police or the neighbouring properties that vandals often entered his property and vandalised it. He would have been liable if he knew this and didn't do anything to prevent them coming into the property.

• A. 

  Stansbie v Troman

• B. 

  Bourhill v Young

• C. 

  Smith v Littlewoods

• D. 

  Dulieu v White