term1 Definition1term2 Definition2term3 Definition3
Please sign in to your Google account to access your documents:
(2)Public authority liability
(3)Liability for the acts of third parties
(4)Liability for negligently inflicted economic loss
(5) Liability fornegligently inflicted psychiatric harm
Harnett vBond (1924)– Bankes LJ:“A medical man who diagnoses a case ofmeasles as a case of scarlet fever may be said to have omitted to make acorrect diagnosis; he may equally be said to have made an incorrect diagnosis.”
duty of care - omissions liability - public bodies - good samaritan
Held:The council were not liable as liability related to an omission. There had only been three accidents in twelve years which was not enough to render the junction a 'cluster site' under the Council's policy for prioritising funding which required five accidents in three years. D had no duty of care to C in respect of this hazard. Even a statutory duty does not automatically give a private right of action. A statutory power does not create a common law duty to be exercised. Unless it would be irrational not to exercise that power. There must be exceptional grounds for holding that the policy of the statute requires compensation to be paid to persons who suffer loss because it is not exercised.
Lord Hoffman on imposing liability for omissions: “There are sound reasons why omissions require different treatment from positive conduct. It is one thing for the law to say that a person who undertakes some activity shall take reasonable care not to cause damage to others. It is another thing for the law to require that a person who is doing nothing in particular shall take steps to prevent another from suffering harm from the acts of third parties or natural causes.”
duty of care - omissions liability - no duty to rescue - emergency services, fire department
1. HAMPSHIRE case: defendant fire brigadeattended fire with cause unknown and Station Officer ordered sprinkler systemturned off…held to have been negligent mistake which had adverse effect onrestraining the fire which spread rapidly and destroyed the whole building
2. LONDON case: premises showered withflaming debris from explosion on nearby waste land…explosion deliberate as itwas from special effects film and television company…fire brigade arrived arethe scene of the explosion and were satisfied all fires had been extinguishedand left…failed to inspect plaintiff’s nearby premise which suffered severedamage when fire broke out later
3. WEST YORKSHIRE: chapel destroyed by fire (causeunknown) which fire authority had failed to extinguish…plaintiffs alleged thiswas due to defendant fire authority’s negligence and breach of statutory dutyas 4 of the 7 fire hydrants around the chapel had failed to work for one reasonor another and three were never found or found so late as to be of little usedue to inadequate signage.
Court of Appeal, Stuart-Smith LJ:
a. “Is there a common law duty on thefire brigade to answer calls to fires or take reasonable care to so do?” ANSWER: “fire brigade not under acommon law duty…they are not liable…
b. “Whether a duty of care might arise once the firebrigade has arrived on the scene and started to fight the fire?” ANSWER: "first…they do not as a rule create the danger whichcauses injury to the plaintiff or loss to his property…they act in the contextof danger already created and damage already caused…but where therescue/protective service itself by negligence create the danger which causedthe plaintiff’s injury there is no doubt in our judgment the plaintiff canrecover…” and "second…requisite proximity exists...a fire brigade does not enter into a sufficientproximate relationship with the owner or occupier of premises to come under aduty of care merely by attending at the fire ground and fighting the fire…thisis so even though the senior officer actually assumes control of thefire-fighting operation”
duty of care: emergency services, coastguard
Held: Coastguard does not owe a duty of care in respect of rescue operations unless their activity led to greater injury than would have occurred if they had not been involved.
duty of care: emergency services, police
Held: There was no sufficient "special relationship" between the shop owner and the police to create a duty of care. If there were a duty in this case, there would be a similar duty towards anyone reporting a crime against his person or property. C lost
duty of care: emergency services, ambulance - exception: defendant creates a source of danger
Held: There were obvious similarities between the instant case and cases involving the police or fire services, where it had been held as a matter of public policy that there was no common law duty to an individual member of the public. In this case the fact that there was only one person who would foreseeably suffer further injuries by a delay was important in establishing the necessary proximity. Ambulance service owe duty if ambulance failed to arrive within reasonable time due to carelessness C won
duty of care - omissions - exception: defendant creates a source of danger - volenti non fit injuria does not apply to rescuers - danger invites rescue
duty of care - omissions - exceptions: thedefendant’s undertaking of responsibility for the claimant’s welfare
Held: The sport's controlling body owed a duty of care to those who took part. Injury was foreseeable. The licensing system created proximity, and in all the circumstances it was just, fair and reasonable to impose such a duty.The duty alleged was not a duty to take care to avoid causing personal injury, but rather a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that personal injuries already sustained were properly treated; C won
duty of care - omissions - exceptions: thedefendant’s occupation of an office or position of responsibility, parent/child
LordPhillips, CoA: "It is quite impractical for parents tokeep children under constant surveillance or even supervision and it would notbe in the public interest for the law to impose a duty upon them to do so. Somecircumstances or activities may, however, involve an unacceptable risk tochildren unless they are subject to supervision, or even constant surveillance.Adults who expose children to such circumstances or activities are likely to beheld responsible for ensuring that they are subject to such supervision or surveillanceas they know, or ought to know, is necessary to restrict the risk to anacceptable level."
Need help typing ? See our FAQ (opens in new window)
Please sign in to create this set. We'll bring you back here when you are done.
Discard Changes Sign in
Please sign in to add to folders.
Sign in
Don't have an account? Sign Up »
You have created 2 folders. Please upgrade to Cram Premium to create hundreds of folders!