INTRODUCTION TO TORT

LAW (TRTL)
DUTY OF CARE V2
 NEGLIGENCE
NO TOPIC
1. NEGLIGENCE: EQUATION OF ELEMENTS
2. DUTY OF CARE (DOC)
3. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT: DUTY OF CARE
4. THE CURRENT APPROACH TEST
5. THE SINGULAR COMPOSITE TEST
 NEGLIGENCE
MUST prove three (3) elements:

Duty of care + Breach of duty + Causation of damage

[In fact + In law (remoteness of damage)]

=
NEGLIGENCE
 NEGLIGENCE
Duty of Care:
 Must establish the first element: the defendant
owes a duty of care to the claimant.
 the responsibility of an individual to not harm
others through carelessness.
 Defendant breached the duty of care imposed by
law.
 DUTY OF CARE

The difference between the approaches of D v S & A v MLBC:

• In D v S: as long as there is a proximity between the parties, there was
a reason to acknowledge that there is a duty of care.
• In A v MLBC: it would be up to the court to decide not to impose the
duty of care after it was assumed that there was a duty of care (X
required to convince the court of a duty of care; the claimant did X
have to prove the duty of care but the defendant can disapprove it.)
 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT: DOC
1. Donaghue V Stevenson : The Neighbour Principle/Test/ Formula
• The objective test of foreseeability
• Proximity between the claimant and defendant
2. Anns V Merton London Borough Council: The two- stage test
• Prima facie duty of care based on proximity and foreseeability
• Policy considerations: to negative/ reduce /limit the scope of duty of
care.
3. Murphy V Brentwood
• Overruled Anns V Merton London Borough Council (due to pure
economic loss)
 THE CURRENT APPROACH/ TEST
Case: Caparo Industries V Dickman Plc (1990)
• Effectively redefined the ‘neighbourhood principle’ as enunciated by
Lord Atkin in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562.
Facts:
• Caparo relied on the accounts prepared by Dickman and purchased
shares in Fidelity plc: the company made a pre tax profit of 1.3 million
pounds.
• In actual fact, Fidelity pls made a loss over 400,000 pounds.
• Caparo sued the auditors for their negligence in not providing an
accurate report ie for negligent misstatement.
 THE CURRENT APPROACH/ TEST
Case: Caparo Industries V Dickman Plc (1990)
Issue:
• There was no contractual relationship between the parties.
• Could the auditor Dickman be liable to Caparo for the negligent
misstatement of the provided accounts by them?
Held:
Based on policy reasons:
• Auditors had X owed a duty of care to the claimants in respect of the
purchase of shares by Caparo.
• X reason why the auditors should have a special relationship with
non- shareholders.
 THE CURRENT APPROACH/ TEST
Case: Caparo Industries V Dickman Plc (1990)
Courts asked three (3) questions:
1. Was the damage reasonable foreseeable?
2.Was there a relationship proximity between defendant and claimant?
3. Is it fair, just and reasonable in all the circumstances to impose a
duty of care?
 THE CURRENT APPROACH/ TEST
Case: Caparo Industries V Dickman Plc (1990)
To claim for economic loss (financial loss and damage suffered by a
person : seen only on a balance sheet rather than as physical injury to
the person or destruction of property) , there must be:
• a common purpose
• a proximate relationship
• known communication with expected reliance and actual reliance.
Conclusion:
• There was no proximity as the defendant knew nothing about Caparo
 CAPARO TEST
1. Is there a valid
precedent ?

YES: NO:
Duty of care (2) NOVEL/ NEW (i) Is Damage
established situations foreseeable?

YES NO
YES (ii)Proximity? X duty of care
(iii) Fair, just &
reasonable?
NO
X duty of care
YES NO
Duty of Care X duty of care
 THE SINGULAR COMPOSITE TEST TEST
Reasonable Foreseeability: Proximity:
Can the defendant foresee that his actions Close relationship between the
will cause harm? defendant’s action & claimant at
time of injury
1.Langley V Day 1. Bourhill V Young
Held: Held:
• Defendant was liable as it was reasonably • The defendant did not owe a duty
foreseeable that increasing speed might of care.
result in an accident to the Claimant. • X reasonably foreseeable that C
might suffer from nervous shock
• The Claimant was X sufficiently
proximate to the scene of the
crash
Fair, Just and Reasonable:
Discussion of policy
Macfarlane V Tayside Health
Body
Held:
The claim was denied on the
basis that it was X just and
reasonable to compensate for
the birth of a healthy child

2. Palsgraf V Long Island Railway 2. Watson V British Boxing Board

Held :
• Defendant was not liable as no indication that
the content of the box was fireworks and the
dropping of the box would cause explosion.
• The claimant was standing a few feet away
and no violation of her personal rights.
Held:
• Sufficient proximity between the
Claimant and the Defendant.
• The defendant was the only body
in UK which could license
professional boxing matches.
 THE SINGULAR COMPOSITE TEST TEST
Reasonable Foreseeability: Proximity Fair, Just and Reasonable
Can the defendant foresee that his
actions will cause harm?
3. Haley V London Electricity Board
Held :
• The defendant breached the duty of
care in ensuring the safety of all
persons who use the walkway
including the blind man.
• The harm was reasonably
foreseeable.
 NEGLIGENCE
MUST prove three (3) elements:

Duty of care + Breach of duty + Causation of damage

[In fact + In law (remoteness of damage)]

=
NEGLIGENCE
 BREACH OF DUTY:2ND ELEMENT
BREACH OF DUTY
• What is the standard expected from D? STANDARD OF A REASONABLE MAN
• Did D come up to the standard? ; or • Blyth V Birmingham
• Did D fall below standard? • Hall V Brookland

1.SKILLED/ PROFESSIONALS
• Bolam V Friern Hospital Mgmt (1957)
• Bolitho V City Hackney Authority
(1997)

STANDARD OF CARE
2.CHILDREN
• Objective test
• Mullin V Richards (1998)
• A person’s conduct
is tested against the SPECIAL
standard of care STANDARD OF
which could be CARE
expected of a • SPORTMANS
DIFFERENT • SPORTING AUTHORITY
reasonable person CLASSES OF • SPORTING OFFICIALS
DEFENDANTS
THE END