Duty Of Care

Front 1

Negligence

Back 1

An actionable wrong which flows from a breach of duty of care that causes a victim foreseeable harm or loss.

Front 2

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

Back 2

Established the "Neighbour Principle". Donoghue found a decomposed snail in her ginger beer so sued Stevenson (manufacturer) for damage to her health.

Front 3

Neighbour principle

Back 3

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.

Front 4

Neighbour

Back 4

A person who is so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions in question.

Front 5

Applying neighbour principle to Donoghue

Back 5

Stevenson should reasonably have had Donoghue in mind when manufacturing and bottling the ginger beer.

Front 6

Caparo v Dickman (1990)

Back 6

Established a modern 3 part test to prove duty of care.

Front 7

Step 1

Back 7

Was the loss to the claimant foreseeable?

Front 8

Step 2

Back 8

Was there sufficient proximity between the parties?

Front 9

Step 3

Back 9

Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?

Front 10

Foreseeability

Back 10

Would a reasonable man have foreseen some damage or harm to the claimant at the time of the alleged negligence. Objective as it's looked at from the view of the reasonable man.

Front 11

Foreseeability supporting case

Back 11

Kent v Griffiths

Front 12

Proximity

Back 12

Closeness of the parties in terms of time, space or relationship. Duty of care will only exist if the relationship of the claimant and the defendant is sufficiently close.

Front 13

Bourhill v Young (1943)

Back 13

Pregnant lady heard a car crash but didn't see it. She suffered from shock, causing her baby to be stillborn. The injury was not forseeable as she was not in the immediate vicinity of the crash.

Front 14

Fair, Just and Reasonable

Back 14

Judges can limit the extent of the tort because the floodgates would be opened if claims of liability were determined by reference to foreseeability alone.

Front 15

Mulcahy v Ministry of Defence (1996)

Back 15

Defendant worked for the army and sustained damage to his ear when a howitzer accidentally fired. No duty of care was owed because it was his job and it would not be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care because it is a matter of common sense and public policy.