Duty of Care

Donoghue v Stevenson

case established the neighbour principle: a legal obligation to take care of the wellbeing of another - this could be physical, or toward their things, or towards them financially.

Robinson v chief constable of West Yorkshire

1. is the current case of a type already decided in law to have a duty

2. similar cases - extended by analogy

3. if novel, do caparo test

Caparo v Dickman

Caparo Test

1. reasonable foreseeability: Would a reasonable person have foreseen that the defendant's actions (or omissions) might cause harm to the claimant?

2. Proximity: Was there a sufficiently close relationship between the claimant and the defendant (legal, physical, or temporal)?

3. Fair, Just, and Reasonable: Is it fair, just, and reasonable for the law to impose a duty of care in this specific situation? This allows the court to consider public policy (e.g., preventing "floodgates" of litigation).

Kent v Griffiths - Reasonably foreseeable

After applying the Caparo test, the court established that the ambulance service does owe a duty of care to a patient once they have accepted a call.

Bourhill v Young

The principle of this case is that a defendant only owes a duty to those they can reasonably foresee might be injured by their actions.

Hill v CC of West Yorkshire

principle: the police generally do not owe a duty of care to individual members of the public to protect them from the actions of unidentified third-party criminals