DOC tort- cases & EQ

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]

Facts: Snail in ginger beer; Principle: Established the 'neighbour principle'; Reasoning: Lord Atkin held manufacturers owe duties to consumers based on reasonable foreseeability of harm.

Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]

Facts: Negligent audit report; Principle: Established the tripartite test (foreseeability, proximity, fairness); Reasoning: Lord Bridge emphasised an incremental approach to avoid indeterminate liability.

Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978]

Facts: Defective building foundations; Principle: Created an expansive two-stage test; Reasoning: Lord Wilberforce suggested duty arises from foreseeability unless policy reasons dictate otherwise.

Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991]

Facts: Cracked foundations; Principle: Overruled Anns and restricted liability for pure economic loss; Reasoning: Lord Keith argued Anns introduced an indeterminate and improper species of liability.

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018]

Facts: Police injured pedestrian during arrest; Principle: Reasserted that Caparo is only for novel cases; Reasoning: Lord Reed held established categories like positive police acts causing physical harm do not require Caparo analysis.

Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales [2015]

Facts: Negligent 999 call handling; Principle: No common law duty for omissions to protect from third parties; Reasoning: Lord Toulson rejected an assumption of responsibility based on the call handler's response.

GN v Poole Borough Council [2019]

Facts: Failure to protect from antisocial neighbours; Principle: Public authorities owe the same duties as private individuals; Reasoning: Lord Reed confirmed that failure to confer a benefit (pure omission) generally attracts no duty.

HXA v Surrey County Council [2023]

Facts: Failure to remove children from abuse; Principle: Internal social service decisions do not constitute an assumption of responsibility; Reasoning: The Supreme Court held that statutory functions do not automatically create common law duties to act.

Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987]

Facts: Vandals started fire in empty cinema; Principle: No general duty to prevent harm by third parties; Reasoning: Lord Goff identified the fundamental rule that the common law does not impose liability for pure omissions.

Stovin v Wise [1996]

Facts: Obstruction at road junction; Principle: No duty to exercise statutory powers to remove hazards; Reasoning: Lord Hoffmann utilised the 'Why pick on me?' argument to justify the lack of a duty to rescue.

Gorringe v Calderdale MBC [2004]

Facts: Failure to repaint road sign; Principle: Statutory duties do not automatically generate common law duties of care; Reasoning: Lord Steyn held that pure omissions by highway authorities regarding signage are not actionable.

Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018]

Facts: A&E receptionist gave incorrect waiting time; Principle: Duty exists within established hospital-patient relationships; Reasoning: The Supreme Court held that non-clinical staff owe a duty regarding the provision of information.

X v Bedfordshire County Council [1995]

Facts: Social services failure to protect children; Principle: Struck out on policy grounds; Reasoning: Lord Browne-Wilkinson feared a duty would cut across statutory systems, though academics argue this improperly conflated duty with breach.

D v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust [2005]

Facts: Wrongful abuse investigations; Principle: Duty owed to children but not parents; Reasoning: Lord Nicholls argued a duty to parents would create a conflict of interest detrimental to child protection.

Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire County Council [1997]

Facts: Fire brigade turned off sprinklers; Principle: Duty arises if a positive act makes the situation worse; Reasoning: While no duty to attend exists, liability was found because the fire brigade's specific intervention increased the damage.

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970]

Facts: Escaped borstal boys damaged yacht; Principle: Duty exists due to control over a third party; Reasoning: Lord Reid found a special relationship and high proximity justified the exception to the omission rule.

Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria [1997]

Facts: Police revealed informant's identity; Principle: Assumption of responsibility via promise of confidentiality; Reasoning: The Court of Appeal found sufficient proximity and policy reasons to protect those assisting police.

Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2024]

Facts: Police failed to warn of black ice; Principle: Established the 'interference principle'; Reasoning: The Supreme Court held no duty arose as the police did not know they were deterring other potential rescuers.

Osman v United Kingdom (1999)

Facts: Police failed to stop stalker; Principle: Blanket immunity for police investigations violates Art. 6 ECHR; Reasoning: The ECtHR held that automatic strike-outs on policy grounds restricted the right to a fair trial.

Z v United Kingdom (2001)

Facts: Social services failed to prevent child abuse; Principle: Art. 3 ECHR provides a remedy where negligence law fails; Reasoning: The ECtHR corrected its Osman ruling, acknowledging domestic policy can limit negligence without breaching Art. 6.

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988]

Facts: Police failed to catch serial killer; Principle: No proximity to general public and police investigative immunity; Reasoning: Lord Keith cited concerns about 'defensive policing' to deny a duty of care.

Barrett v Enfield London Borough Council [1999]

Facts: Negligent upbringing in care; Principle: Caution against striking out complex policy-based claims; Reasoning: Lord Browne-Wilkinson suggested policy concerns are often better handled at the breach stage rather than the duty stage.

Sutradhar v National Environment Research Council [2006]

Facts: Failed arsenic testing in Bangladesh; Principle: No duty to an indeterminate class; Reasoning: Lord Hoffmann held that a lack of control and excessive numbers of potential claimants negated proximity.

Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co [1973]

Facts: Power cut ruined steel; Principle: No duty for pure economic loss; Reasoning: Lord Denning argued allowing claims for lost profit would lead to an indeterminate number of claims.

Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller and Partners [1964]

Facts: Negligent bank reference; Principle: Assumption of responsibility creates duty for pure economic loss; Reasoning: The House of Lords held that 'special relationships' where D's skill is relied upon can generate liability.

Bourhill v Young [1943]

Facts: Bystander witnessed crash aftermath; Principle: No duty to an unforeseeable claimant; Reasoning: The House of Lords held the claimant was outside the 'zone of danger' and therefore no proximity existed.

Airport Authority v Western Air (The Bahamas) [2020]

Facts: Stolen aircraft due to poor security; Principle: Duty arises from exclusive control and assumption of responsibility; Reasoning: The PC found the authority created the risk by excluding private security and failing to maintain its own.

Smith v MOD [2013]

Facts: Inadequate equipment in battle; Principle: Non-justiciability is not an automatic bar to negligence; Reasoning: Lord Hope held that whether a claim involves 'high policy' or 'operational failure' requires factual examination at trial.

Woodcock v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [2025]

Facts: Police failure to warn of domestic threat; Principle: Strict application of the omissions rule to police; Reasoning: The Court of Appeal rejected both assumption of responsibility and the interference principle on these facts.

The debate regarding Duty of Care as a 'Control Device' versus a 'Normative Obligation'.

Academic Views: Tony Weir argues duty is a fictional retrospective tool; Nicholas McBride contends it is a real obligation proved by the availability of quia timet injunctions.

The core debate on whether the tripartite Caparo test is a genuine legal test.

Academic Views: Felix Cohen dismisses the factors as 'word charms'; Christian Witting defends the structure by proposing 'significant causal pathways' to define proximity.

The debate on the merits of 'Incrementalism' in the development of Duty of Care.

Academic Views: David Howarth critiques it as 'extraordinarily weak' because every category was once novel; Ronald Dworkin warns that 'analogy without theory is blind'.

The contested area of the 'Doctrinal Confusion' between duty, breach, and causation.

Academic Views: Jane Stapleton and Andrew Burrows advocate for strict separation to prevent policy from masking fault issues; Key Cases: Darnley and X v Bedfordshire.

The debate over public authority liability and the 'Private/Public Equivalence' principle.

Academic Views: Jane Stapleton questions the coherence of immunities; David Howarth critiques the restrictive approach in cases like Michael and GN v Poole.

The critique of the 'Floodgates' argument as a reason to limit liability.

Academic Views: David Howarth argues it perversely rewards defendants who cause harm on a massive scale; Key Case: Sutradhar v NERC.

The debate surrounding 'Policy Reasoning' in Duty of Care cases.

Academic Views: Ernest Weinrib views policy as 'alien' to corrective justice; Jane Stapleton urges courts to 'unmask' the substantive policy factors they actually use.

The effectiveness of the Human Rights Act 1998 as a substitute for negligence claims.

Academic Views: Nick McBride questions the 'uniform' approach of negligence compared to the ambitious nature of the HRA; Key Cases: Michael and Z v UK.

The 'Revisionism' debate following the Supreme Court's decision in Robinson.

Academic Views: Janet O'Sullivan critiques Lord Reed for re-characterising policy-heavy precedents like Hill as simple omission cases to avoid Caparo analysis.

The 'Fifth Wheel' debate on the necessity of the Duty of Care concept.

Academic Views: Percy Buckland argues duty provides a necessary structure; Lord Nicholls in D v East Berkshire suggests abandoning it would fail to clarify the law.

In the 'Cynical View', Lord Goff in Smith v Littlewoods argues the primary function of duty is to identify cases where liability is _____.

not imposed

According to Nicholas McBride, the existence of _____ injunctions proves that duties of care exist prior to harm being caused.

quia timet

Andrew Robertson proposes dividing the Duty of Care inquiry into 'interpersonal justice' and _____.

social welfare

Lord Steyn in Hall v Simons abolished the immunity of _____ from negligence liability.

barristers

The 'Interference Principle' from Tindall requires that D must know C needs help and that D's act deterred a _____.

would-be rescuer

What three factors constitute the tripartite test established in Caparo Industries v Dickman?

Reasonable foreseeability, proximity, and that it is fair, just, and reasonable (FJR) to impose liability.

What is the 'Neighbour Principle' as defined by Lord Atkin?

The obligation to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that you can reasonably foresee would likely injure persons closely and directly affected.

Why is the 'Why pick on me?' argument relevant in Stovin v Wise?

It highlights the unfairness of imposing an affirmative duty to rescue on one individual when many others also failed to act.

Under the 'Interference Principle' from Tindall v CC Thames Valley Police, what must A know regarding B?

A must know B needs help and that A's conduct has put off or prevented someone else from helping B.

What is the distinction between 'making things worse' and 'failing to make things better' as proposed in GN v Poole?

It replaces the acts/omissions distinction to better reflect the rationale that liability arises from causing harm rather than failing to confer a benefit.

Why did the HRA Art 2 claim succeed in Michael v CC South Wales when the negligence claim failed?

The HRA has a different threshold ('real and immediate risk to life') and depends on factual determination at trial rather than legal duty tests.

How does 'Non-justiciability' apply to claims against the Ministry of Defence in battle conditions?

Courts will not adjudicate on high-level political or spending decisions, such as equipment procurement, due to the separation of powers.

What is the 'HRA gap' for claimants who suffer serious injury but are not killed?

Art. 2 (Right to Life) cannot be invoked, leaving the claimant without the parallel human rights remedy available in fatal cases.

In Darnley v Croydon Health Services, why did the Supreme Court reject the Court of Appeal's use of Caparo?

The case concerned an established category (hospital-patient), making the consideration of 'fair, just and reasonable' unnecessary.

According to Cardozo CJ in Ultramares, duty law prevents liability in an indeterminate _____ for an indeterminate _____ to an indeterminate _____.

amount; time; class

Janet O'Sullivan argues that Robinson re-characterised policy-heavy precedents like Hill as simple _____ cases.

omissions

The 'Defensiveness Argument' suggests that imposing a duty of care would cause public authorities to become too _____.

cautious

Concept: The 'Heroic Age' of Negligence

Definition: The era following Donoghue v Stevenson where general principles were used to expand liability, now repudiated by Robinson's incrementalism.

Process: Determining duty in a NOVEL case

Step: Apply the Caparo factors methodically and develop the duty by analogy with the closest established category (incrementalism).

Formula: The Caparo Factors

Components: $Foreseeability + Proximity + Fair, Just, and Reasonable = Duty of Care$.

Concept: Battle Conditions Exception

Example: Mulcahy v MOD; Reasoning: It is unreasonable to expect soldiers in battle to owe a duty of care to their comrades.

Term: Pure Economic Loss

Definition: Financial loss not resulting from physical injury or property damage; generally requires an 'assumption of responsibility' for a duty to exist.

Concept: Non-justiciability

Definition: A doctrine preventing courts from adjudicating on matters of high-level policy or political discretion, often seen in MOD or resource cases.

In Barrett v Enfield, Lord Bingham noted that strike-outs should be avoided in _____ areas of law where policy factors are complex.

developing

Lord Reid in Dorset Yacht stated that proximity requires the claimant to be within a _____ class of potential victims.

foreseeable

According to Stapleton, proximity is often a synonym for _____ considerations.

policy

The Law Commission proposed a statutory tort for public authorities with a _____ negligence threshold.

gross

O'Sullivan argues that treating assumption of responsibility as a binary factual question leads to results based on the 'niceties of _____'.

language and syntax

In Osman v UK, the ECtHR held that a 'blanket _____' for police breached the right to a fair trial.

immunity

The Supreme Court in HXA v Surrey CC sought to _____ the exceptions for failure to protect in social services cases.

minimise

Howarth argues that the 'floodgates' logic inverts moral logic by giving defendants an incentive to cause harm on the _____ scale.

largest possible