AN INTRODUCTION TO NEGLIGENCE LAW

McBride & Bagshaw, Tort Law, 3rd ed (2008), pp 47-71, 187-203

Weir, An Introduction to Tort Law, 2nd ed (2006), ch 2
Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad, 248 NY 339 (1928) (note: American case)
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Anns v Merton LBC [1978] AC 728
Smith & Burns, Donoghue v Stevenson the not so golden anniversary (1983) 46
Modern Law Review 147
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53
Caparo v Dickman plc [1990] 2 AC 605
The Nicholas H [1996] AC 211
Capital and Counties plc v Hampshire CC [1997] QB 1004
Stapleton, Duty of care factors: a selection from the judicial menus in Cane &
Stapleton (eds), The Law of Obligations: Essays in Honour of John Fleming
(1998)
Greatorex v Greatorex [2000] 4 All ER 769
McBride, Duties of care: do they really exist? (2004) 24 Oxford Journal of Legal
Studies 417
Brooks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2005] 1 WLR 1495 W
Howarth, Many duties of care or a duty of care? Notes from the underground
(2006) 26 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 449
Van Colle v Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire Police [2008] UKHL __
Questions to consider
1.

Can we reduce the law of negligence down to the following proposition: We

are all under a duty to act reasonably and will be held liable for breach of that
duty to those who are foreseeably harmed by our breach unless public policy
dictates otherwise? Would it be good if we could?

2.

Why does the law of negligence draw the distinctions it does between: (a)
physical injury and psychiatric illness; (b) property damage and economic loss;
(c) acts and omissions. Should it?

3.

Many of the above cases deal with the scope of the polices liability in
negligence. Should the police be treated as a special case within the law of
negligence?

4.

Bob owns a jewellery store in a mall owned by Sam. A gang broke into the
mall last night and stole all of the jewellery in Bobs store. An alarm that had
been installed in Bobs store by Hilda and that was linked to a nearby police
station failed to operate. Until six months ago, Sam employed a guard to patrol
the mall during the night and call the police if there was any sign of trouble, but
he had laid the guard off to save money. Fred and Ginger a couple of police
officers happened to pass by the mall shortly before the break-in and spotted
some men hanging about outside the mall but they did nothing to move the men
on or ask them what they were doing. What sort of things would you expect the

courts to take into account in determining who Bob might be able to sue in tort
in this situation? What sort of things would you expect the courts not to take
into account?