Negligence Duty of Care

Donoghue v Stevenson

Facts:
Woman found decomposed snail in ginger beer
Suffered from illness and shock
Because her friend bought the drink, no contract existed between the woman and the manufacturer

Held:
The manufacturer owed duty to consumer

Principle:
Manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers
Lord Atkins introduced the Neighbor Principle
Take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm to your “neighbor”
Neighbor = anyone closely/directly affected by your acts

Significance:
Foundation of modern negligence
Allows duty without contract
Influential in common law countrier

Home Office v Dorest Yacht Co

Definition:
Facts:
Young inmates escaped from supervision
Damaged the claimant’s yachts
Claimants sued the Home Office for negligence of guards failing to restrain the boys

Held:
Home Office was liable
Officers owed a duty to prevent foreseeable harm

Principle:
Extended Donoghue v Stevenson (Neighbour Principle) to new circumstances
Duty can arise from omissions where the defendant has control over third parties
Shows duty extends beyond direct physical act

Anns v Merton

Facts:
Flats were built with incorrect foundation dimensions
Council was supposed to inspect the foundations during construction
Council failed to notice the defect, leading to damage of the flats

Held:
Council owed a duty to future occupants
Council had a legal responsibility to ensure the foundations were properly built

Two-Tier Test (Lord Wilberforce):

1. Proximity: Is there a sufficiently close relationship where there is a reasonable foreseeability of damage?

2. Policy: Are there any reasons the law should limit or reject the duty?

Test later rejected:

• Step 1 (proximity) was too broad

• Almost any foreseeable harm could create a duty unless Step 2 (policy) prevented it

• Risked opening the “floodgates” of claims

Caparo v Dickman

Facts:
Investors relied on a negligent audit
This caused them financial loss rather than the expected profit
They sued the auditors for negligence

Held:
No duty of care owed
Auditors did not know the investors’ purpose
Accounts were prepared for the company’s shareholders as a general body for statutory purposes, not specifically for the investors (Caparo)

Caparo Three-Part Test for Duty of Care:

1. Foreseeability of harm

2. Proximity between parties (Neighbour Principle)

3. Fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty

Significance:

• Modern UK approach to establishing duty of care

• Restricts duty in cases involving pure economic loss

Ward v McMaster

Facts:
Irish Supreme Court adopted the Anns two-step test

Judgment:
McCarthy J preferred a broad, principle-based approach rather than an incremental one

Importance:
Early adoption of the Anns test in Ireland
Showed that Irish courts initially followed the UK two-step approach to determining duty of care

Glencar Explorations v Mayo County Council

Facts:
Council imposed an unlawful mining ban (ultra vires)
Company suffered financial loss as a result
Company sued the Council in negligence, claiming a duty of care for the losses

Held:
No duty of care owed by the Council
Council’s role as a public authority involves policy decisions affecting many people
Imposing a duty of care could create “floodgates” issues, with authorities potentially sued every time someone lost money

Keane CJ – 4-Step Irish Test:

1. Is the harm reasonably foreseeable?

2. Is there proximity between the parties?

3. Are there countervailing policy considerations?

4. Is it fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty?

Importance:

• Introduced policy considerations as a key part of duty of care in Ireland

• Marked a shift from the Anns two-step test to a more structured, policy-aware approach

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

Context:
Case involved the UK Supreme Court reviewing previous duty of care cases
Focused on how courts should determine whether a duty of care exists rather than a single incident

Principle:

• No single universal test for duty of care

• No need to apply one rigid test in every case

• Duty of care depends on the facts of each case

• Advocates incremental development using precedent and analogy

• Caparo test should be used only for novel situations

• Three-step test created for new, unprecedented scenarios

Importance:

• Moves away from rigid, one-size-fits-all tests

• Encourages flexibility and fairness by developing law gradually

• Reinforces reliance on precedent and analogy unless the situation is completely new

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

Facts:
Victim’s mother sued the police for failing to catch the Yorkshire Ripper sooner
Claimed negligence, arguing earlier intervention would have prevented her daughter’s death

Held:
No duty of care owed by police to individual members of the public

Rationale:

• Imposing a duty could interfere with policing, making officers hesitant and causing defensive policing

• Would open the “floodgates” to claims against police for every failure to prevent crime

Exception:

• Duty may exist if police create or increase risk through their actions or omissions

• Duty may exist in specific situations where there is direct, foreseeable harm

Hedley Byrne v Heller

Facts:
Bank gave a negligent reference
This caused the customer to suffer financial loss when the company went bankrupt

Legal Principle:

• Duty of care exists where one assumes responsibility and it is foreseeable that others will rely on it

Importance:

• Established the basis for special relationships creating a duty of care in economic/financial contexts

• Introduced the concept of “assumption of responsibility” as a route to liability

Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales

Facts:
A 999 call was mishandled, and the threat was not properly communicated
The woman was killed by her ex-partner

Held:
No general duty of care owed by the police
Narrow exception exists if the police know of an immediate and specific threat and fail to act

Importance:

• Modern limitation on Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

• Shows courts balance individual safety against public policy and allocation of police resources

Smyth v Commissioner of An Garda Síochána

Context:
Examined how the Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire principle applies in Irish law, testing whether Gardaí can be sued for failure to investigate

Facts:
Paul Smyth, a Garda, claimed Gardaí were negligent for failing to properly investigate hoax calls, which harmed his reputation and caused financial loss (missed promotion)

Defence (Gardaí):
Relied on Hill — police owe no duty of care to individuals for how they investigate crimes (public policy)

Plaintiffs’ argument:
Duty should exist due to:

• Special relationship (Smyth was a Garda, not just a member of the public)

• Assumption of responsibility (police promised to act)

• Operational failure (not just a policy decision)

Held:
Court refused to strike out the case
Hill principle not absolute in Ireland; exceptions could allow a duty of care

Reasoning:

• Police immunity protects against constant lawsuits but must be balanced with fairness and personal rights

• Possible exceptions:

  • Special relationship: Smyth’s unique position

  • Assumption of responsibility: Police promised to act and Smyth relied on it

  • Operational vs policy: Operational failures could create liability, policy decisions likely immune

• Harm includes non-physical effects (reputation, career) protected under Article 40.3.2

Principles:

• Police immunity in Ireland is not absolute

• Duty of care may arise if there is a special relationship, assumption of responsibility, or operational failure

• Courts balance public policy with individual rights

Kelly v Commissioner of An Garda 

Kelly v Commissioner of An Garda Síochána (2015)

• Facts: 

  • Victim killed by criminal on bail; husband claimed Garda negligence.

• Principle

  • No duty of care → policy reasons and lack of close relationship

  • Lack of resources (manage resources)

• Reasoning

  • Imposing duty would make Garda work in investigations practically impossible.