Negligence A03

Not fair < relation to the rule on proximity

Only claimants related to a victim of negligence can claim < C's who suffered damaged + harm from witnessing an event < may not be able to claim

Bourhill v Young - some may argue that < d's fault that her baby was stillborn

On the other hand, < if courts allowed all people who witnesses traumatic event to claim = floodgates would open + become impractical

Unfair as claims against police

Courts are very reluctant to find it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on the police which might be unfair

Shown in the case of Hill < police negligence in arresting the Yorkshire ripper < led to a preventable murder

To impose a duty of care to police < for all victim = wouldn't be good for public policy < in allowing police to do their job effective

Unfair < speical characteristics are considered

Logical that the standard of care is higher for some people < than others Eg adults compared to children < although different for learner driver < shown in Nettleship

Fairs on Cs < wouldn't be fair to not to claim < just because it was a learner < when there is still damage or harm

It may obvious that a learner driver wouldn't be as competent < as an experience's driver < so why doesn't law reflect this

Unfair < judges are always updating the law to fit in with the modern society

If Caparo test was never established = new situation wouldn't have a claim = unfair

New situation like in Caparo happing more and more in modern times < so flexibility is needed

Law on negligence does go against parliamentary sovereignty < can be seen as undemocratic

refroms

to make negligence claims to be fairer on Cs < use ADR instead of costly time-consuming cases < which cost claimant more + encourage the compensation culture.