NEGLIGENCE WORKSHOP 7

DUTY OF CARE
Breach of a legal duty to take care by the defendant resulting in *
1 damage to the claimant.

HOW TO DETERMINE DUTY AT CARE BEING OWED

Test 1 – Donoghue u Sturgeon

 Foreseeability – Taker reassemble care to avoid acts 1

omissions while can reasonably furze would injure your
neighbour.
 Proximity – Persons who are soo closely and directly
affected by the act.

New care / Approach in ascertaining “Duty of Care”

Caparo u Dickman (3 stage approach)

Note that, where a precedent has been established, there’s no

need to apply this.

3 stage test. No Precedent then

a) Foreseeability of harm – Objective man test. Reasonably

foreseeable that the * take of care would cause the claimant
harm.
 b) Proximity – Closeness between the defendant and claimant.
Very important eg: where * arumed responsibility for the
claimant (care of kk / witness)
c) It must be fair / just/ reasonable to impose * * - At the
courts * looking at the whole circumstance (socially,
politically and economically) – In effect, policy consideration
in the area of.
 Floodgate and Deterrence
 Insurance and Defensive *

The approach in Caparo is confirmed in the case of Robinson v

cliet constable

Example of established precedent

1. Road user to ouer road users

Nettleship v Weston – aidriver owes a duty of care to otuer
road users not to cause them physical injury by careless
driving
Apply task – In the case of BW US
2. Carsidy v Ministry of Health and Medical protesimals owe a
duty of care to patients once the7y have accepted them for
treatment.
Apply Task – In the care of BW v Dr. * Medical Negligence.
 3. Robinson V Cliet Constable – Police owes a duty of care to
the public to protect them from reasonably foreseeable
physical injury when carrying out an arrest. But owes no
duly to respond to emergency calls – Alexandrou x Oxford.

Liability for Omission

General Rule: No duty is imposed on a mere failure to act – Smith

v Little woods * is liability impose on those who cause injury /
damage.

Eg: No legal obligation to * by rescue Jomeme drowing. In the

case of KK, there was no legal * to try to rescue BW.

Exception – There is no duty imposed on a mere failure to act

except.

1. Statue imposes such a duty or (Don’t worry)

2. Where the defendant * responsibility for the claimant or
3. Where the defendant created the risk or
4. Where there’s a * duly or
5. The de has * control over the claimant

Omisms and the emergency services

1. Ambulance – Kent v Griffiths on acceptance of an
emergency call, the ambulance service owes a duty of care
to * within a reasonable time.

Duty might not be bereaved where

a. Exercise their * to deal with a more * emergency

2. The hire Brigade – Owes NU duty of care to attend a hire but
if they do, they owe a duty not to make a situation worse * a
positive act.
- Capital and Countries U *
3. The Police – Owes, No duty to respond to emergency calls –
Alexandrou u *

Liability for Acts of 3rd Parshes

General Rule – Smith v Little woods, these is no * duty is

imposed an a twelve to present a 3rd party occurring learn to
another.
 Eg: No duty imposed an MCC to present S.J from causing harm
to B.W

Exception

Look at the act of the 3rd party

1. Sufficient proximity between defendant and claimant

2. Sufficient proximily between defendant and 3rd party
3. The defendant created the danger
4. The risk was on the defendant premises

Apply Task 1 – Identify who owes the claimant a duty of care,

tort, *

1. Parties – Ben Williams (BW) (Claimant)

Possible defendant – Sophia Jennings (S.J)
- BW v SJ - *
- Torts- General Negligence
- Loss – Personal injury to back (back pain), **************
- Properly damage – Damage to car repair / replacing it
- Consequential economic loss * directly by personal injury.
2. BW v KK (Witness)
Tort – General Negligence
 Tort – Personal injury - * back injury couring a slipped disc
in his * spine as a result of pulling BW out of the car. Hence,
* contributed to this pain.
- Consequential economic tors

BW v Northern Ambulance

3. Tort- General Negligence

Tort – Personal injury, * of his sipplied disc, cause as a result
ambulance service arriving lare and GEL.
4. BW v Dr *
Tort – Clinical / Medical Negligence
Tort – Personal injury - * in both legs as a result of surgery
performed by Dr. G. and CEL.

CEL – O rooter for the last 4 years but has been unable to
work since the accident. Tort income and job.