170102048

Course Code: PPL 311

Course Title: Law of Tort.
A duty of care would be owed wherever in the circumstances that it is forseeable that
if the defendant does not exercise due care, the plaintiff will be harmed. The
forseeability test was laid down by Lord Atkins in DONOGHUE v. STEVENSON
and 60 years later, it was modified in CAPARO INDUSTRIES v. DICKMAN.
In cases concerning unborn children, a duty of care is owed to them despite not being
considered persons under the law. In BURTON v. ISLINGTON HEALTH
AUTHORITY, they carried out a dilation and curettage procedure at a time when the
plaintiff’s mother was about five weeks pregnant with the plaintiff but did not know
it, and they failed to carry out any pregnancy test before the D&C procedure. The
court held that a duty of care is owed to the children despite that they were unborn at
the time of the negligent treatment. See DE MARTELL v, MERTON and
SUTTON HEALTH AUTHORITY.
Police, rescuers and public authority:
Due to the nature of their public duty, it will be unfair, unjust and unreasonable to
impose a duty of care on them, without an adverse effect on the way they carry out
their duties. In HILLv.CHIEF CONSTABLE of WESTERN YORKSHIRE,
Jacqueline Hill was the final victim of Peter Sutcliffe.. Jacqueline’s mother made a
claim against the Chief Constable on the grounds that the police had been negligent in
their detention of Sutcliffe. The court held that no duty of care was owed and that the
duty of the police was to the public at large.
In the fire service case of CAPITAL and COUNTIES (CAPCO) v. HAMPSHIRE
COUNTY COUNCIL, a fire broke out and when the fire brigade came, they turned
off the sprinkler system. They had difficulty in locating the seat of the fire and the fire
became out of control, By the time the firemen had located the seat of the fire Block
A of the building had collapsed and spread to blocks B & C. They then reactivated the
sprinkler system however, by now it was so damaged as to not work effectively. The
entire building was completely destroyed causing loss of 16m pounds. If the
sprinklers had not been switched off, it is likely blocks B&C would have been saved.
The court held that a duty of care was owed since the fire brigade’s action in turning
off the sprinklers increased the damage. However, in JOHN MUNROE v LONDON
FIRE BRIGADE, no duty of care was owed.