Duty of Care

Definition of Duty of Care

• Duty of care refers to the legal obligation of one party to avoid causing harm to another party through negligent actions. It is a critical concept in negligence claims.

Establishing Duty of Care

To establish a claim for negligence, the claimant must demonstrate four key elements:

1. Duty of Care: The defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant.

2. Breach of Duty: The defendant breached that duty.

3. Causation: The claimant suffered damage as a direct result of that breach.

4. Remoteness of Damage: The damage suffered must not be too remote.

Key Cases on Duty of Care

1. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

• Facts: Mrs. Donoghue consumed ginger beer containing a decomposed snail, purchased by a friend. She suffered gastroenteritis.

• Decision: The House of Lords held that a manufacturer owed a duty of care to the consumer despite the absence of a direct contractual relationship.

• Principle: Established the "Neighbour Principle" which states we must take reasonable care to avoid acts that could foreseeably harm others.

2. Anns v Merton LBC (1978)

• Facts: Defective building work led to unsafe conditions in homes. Claimants sued the local authority.

• Decision: The court proposed a two-question test regarding proximity and policy considerations but this was later overruled.

• Principle: Introduced an approach based on proximity and consideration of policy grounds for the imposition of a duty of care.

3. Murphy v BDC (1990)

• Facts: Involved claims against a local authority for economic loss due to building defects.

• Decision: House of Lords overruled the Anns test, focusing on precedents for establishing a duty.

• Principle: Reiterated that foreseeability alone does not establish duty of care without clear established authority.

4. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990)

• Facts: The claimant sued the auditors of Fidelity plc after acquiring shares based on misleading financial statements.

• Decision: It was held that no duty of care was owed by auditors to the shareholders.

• Principle: Established a three-part test for duty of care: 1) Foreseeability, 2) Proximity, 3) Fairness of imposing a duty.

The Three-Part Test from Caparo

• Courts apply this test to assess whether a duty of care exists, considering:

  1. Foreseeability of Harm: Must the defendant have reasonably foreseen the risk of harm to the claimant?

  2. Proximity of Relationship: Is there a sufficiently close relationship between the parties?

  3. Fair, Just and Reasonable: Is it appropriate to impose a duty on the defendant?

Evaluating the Three-Part Test

5. Bourhill v Young (1943)

• Facts: A pregnant woman heard a motorcycle accident and subsequently suffered psychiatric harm.

• Decision: The claim failed as it was not foreseeable that the claimant would suffer psychiatric harm.

• Principle: Established limitations on claims for psychiatric injury in negligence.

6. Haley v LEB (1965)

• Facts: A blind man fell over a hammer left on the pavement, leading to serious injury.

• Decision: Liability was established because it was foreseeable that someone with visual impairments could be harmed.

• Principle: Duty of care extends to those who may be reasonably affected by negligent actions.

7. Mitchell v Glasgow City Council (2009)

• Facts: The council was sued for failing to protect a claimant from a violent neighbour.

• Decision: The court found no duty of care existed due to a lack of a clear obligation.

• Principle: Reinforced the idea that imposing a duty could hinder public authorities in carrying out their roles.

8. Robinson v CC Yorkshire (2018)

• Facts: During a police operation, officers accidentally injured an elderly woman.

• Decision: The court ruled an established legal authority existed, eliminating the need for Caparo's test.

• Principle: Emphasised that established precedents can provide a basis for duty of care without requiring an incremental approach.

Evaluation of Duty of Care

• Strengths:

  • The evolution of duty of care allows for flexible interpretation, adapting to new societal needs.

  • The Caparo test provides clear criteria for judges to determine duty in novel situations.

• Limitations:

  • The strict adherence to established categories can hinder claims in unique cases.

  • Issues of fairness arise when not all potential claimants have equal access to justice in negligence cases, possibly due to public policy considerations.

  • Imposing liability could open the floodgates to excessive claims, burdening the legal system and public services.

Understanding the duty of care is essential in A-Level tort law, requiring a grasp of historical context, pivotal cases, and evaluation of how the law applies to novel situations. The principles established continue to influence the landscape of negligence law.