Studied by 7 people
What is needed to prove negligence?
They owe a duty of care to the claimant; The duty of care has been breached; The breach causes damage which is reasonably foreseeable.
Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 importance
this is the case where the modern law of negligence was established
In the judgement the Law Lords used the principle from Heaven v Pender 1883 to set out when a duty of care was owed.
This case is very famous and it was used to establish broad principles of owing a legal duty of care and generally liability in negligence, known as the neighbour test.
Donoghue v Stevenson 1932
Donoghue drank from a ginger beer bottle which had remains of a decomposed snail.
She fell ill and suffered mental anguish.
She wanted compensation but could not sue under contract law because she had not bought the drink.
Instead she sued for negligence, claiming they owed her a duty of care and were at fault in the manufacturing process.
Who/ what are neighbours?
Those who are closely affected by my actions
Caparo v Dickman 1990
Caparo had bought shares in the company and relied upon the results of a profit report. However, it was later found that the results of the report had misrepresented the profits of the firm, in turn causing a loss for Caparo.
The House of Lords decided no duty of care was owed and they set out the following 3 part test:
1) damage must be reasonably foreseeable as a result of the defendants conduct
2) the parties must be in a relationship of proximity or neighbourhood.
3)it must be fair and just and reasonable to impose liability on the defendant.
Caparo Test - Damage or reasonably foreseeable?
Whether the damage or injury is reasonably foreseeable depends on the facts of a case.
Kent v Griffiths 2000 - The claimant had an asthma attack. An ambulance was called but it failed to turn up.
Ratio: The court of appeal held in favour of the claimant. The ambulance service owed a duty of care after accepting the 999 call for assistance. The breached this duty by failing to arrive promptly without good reason.
Caparo Test - Proximity of relationship
There will only be a duty of care if proximity is established. Proximity exists in space, time, and relationship.
Bourhill v Young 1943 - A pregnant woman heard an accident and went to look at it. She suffered shock when she saw the aftermath of the accident and subsequently suffered a miscarriage.
Ratio: under no duty of care to the appellant to foresee that his negligence in driving at an excessive speed and colliding with a motor car might cause injury to her, for such a result could not reasonably and probably be anticipated. He was not guilty of negligence.
Caparo Test - Fair and just and reasonable to impose the duty
The courts consider whether it would be right to impose a duty of care on the defendant. Traditionally the courts have been reluctant to impose a duty of care on public bodies.
Hill v Chief constable of West Yorkshire 1990 - The mother of the last victim of the Yorkshire ripper wished to sue the police after they failed to arrest the Yorkshire ripper after he killed her daughter, despite having enough evidence to do so.
Ratio: Defendant was not liable in negligence as no duty of care was owed or arisen on the facts. Moreover, the killer was not in custody of the police and the victim was one of a vast number of the female general public and there was no distinctive risk. Owing a duty of care to the public at large would lead to defensive conduct when carrying out police functions.
Problems with the Caparo Test
Lawyers and judges in lower courts applied the Caparo test to EVERY negligence situation. This was not what the Lords in Caparo intended.
The police and other emergency services used Hill to argue that, for policy reasons, it was not fair and just and reasonable for them to owe a duty of care to members of the public with whom they had no previous dealing.
Courts review of the Caparo Test
The Courts took the opportunity to review how the Caparo test was used in the case of Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 2018
An elderly lady was walking along a street, and was inured when police officers tried to arrest a suspected drug dealer. There was a struggle, during which the suspect and the police fell to the ground, collided with the claimant and inured her.
Ratio: The defendant was liable. But, the Caparo test does not have to be applied strictly in every case, instead the courts should look to existing statues and precedents and identify duty through analogy. Where there is an existing or analogous duty that can be applied, the courts do not need to consider the Caparo test, as such consideration has already been determined, recognising the duty .
Darnley v Croydon NHS Trust (2018)
The appeal was allowed and the defendant was held liable. The duty of care had previously been established in situations like this before, the receptionist had acted negligently and the chain of causation was not broken by the appellant.
Sumner v Colborne and others (2018)
The court held that there was no duty of care owed after going through the 3 step incremental approach in respect to a novel case, and that there was no duty of care owed in respect of overgrown vegetation.
Establishing existing/ analogous duties - Doctors/ Patients
Bolam v Friern Hospital Committee
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington hospitals
Establishing existing/ analogous duties - Manufactuerers/ Consumers
Donoghue v Stevenson
Establishing existing/ analogous duties - Employers/ Employees
Paris v v Stepney BC
Health and Safety at Work Act
Establishing existing/ analogous duties - Chef or Caterer/ Consumers
Food Safety Act
Bhamra v Dubb
Establishing existing/ analogous duties - Drivers or Road Users/ Pedestrians
Road Traffic Act 1988
Highways Act 1990
Nettleship v Weston
Establishing existing/ analogous duties - Solicitors or Barristers/ Clients
Aruther JS Hall v Simons
Establishing existing/ analogous duties - Police/ Public
Robinson v CCOWY
Reeves v MPC
Establishing existing/ analogous duties - Teachers/ Students
Carmartheshire CC v Lewis
Note 
Flashcard (64)