Revise Tort Law: Negligence: Duty Of Care

Front 1

Anns v Merton LBC (1978)

Back 1

A Local authority was held liable for its failure to prevent the construction of a building, which later cracked, causing economic loss to the plaintiffs.

Principle: The Test for Duty of Care was restated by Lord Wilberforce in terms which were very expansive. Two Stage Test: 1) Proximity or neighborhood (based on foreseeability) 2) The Absence of any policy considerations which would negate the finding of a duty. This expansive test overruled by Murphy v Brentwood.

Front 2

Caparo Dickman (1990)

Back 2

In a negligence action against a firm of auditors for financial loss suffered due to negligent compilation of company accounts, it was that the defendant did not owe a DOC to investors.

Ratio: Lord Bridge's three stage test 1) Foreseeable damage 2) Proximity between the parties 3) "Fair just and reasonable"

Front 3

Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank (2007)

Back 3

Customs and Excise had obtained "freezing orders" on the bank account of two companies. The D's had negligently contravened these orders and allowed funds to be withdrawn from the accounts.

Held: HL: three stage test was insufficient in this factual situation and "assumption of responsibility" had also to be considered. The order against the D's had been compulsory and so they could in no way be said to have voluntarily assumed responsibility. No DoC in negligence could be attributed.

Front 4

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

Back 4

Lord Atkin's "neighbour principle" based upon foreseeability was the first general principle for determining duty of care in negligence. The So-Called "narrow ratio" from Donoghue established liability of manufacturers to those injured by their products.

Front 5

Haley v London Electricity Board (1965)

Back 5

A blind pedestrian was injured when he fell on an obstacle which would not have posed a danger to those who could see. A DoC had been owed to him.

Principle: The Court considered statistics on the frequency of blind pedestrians and concluded that they were common enough that they should've been within the contemplation of the defendant. Haley illustrates that the duty must be owed to this claimant

Front 6

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989)

Back 6

HL held that no duty to protect victim especially existed. The Plaintiff in Hill failed owing both to absence of proximity between the defendant and the deceased victim but also due to number of persuasive policy reasons.

Front 7

Home office v Dorset Yacht Co (1970)

Back 7

A group of young offenders on an outing escaped and caused damage to the pliantiff's yacht. It was held that the home office whose employees should've controlled the youths owed a DoC to Plaintiff.

Ratio: D can be liable for actions of third party if was expected to exercise direct control and special danger.

Front 8

Marc Rich&Co v Bishop Rock Marine Co (1996)

Back 8

A marine classification society certified as seaworthy a ship that later sank. There was held to be no DoC owed to the owners of lost cargo.

Held: Caparo test can be applied to all kinds of losses, would not be FJreasonable to owe a DoC.

Front 9

Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (2005)

Back 9

A witness to the racially motivated murder of Stephen Lawrence, brought negligence action against the police for the way they had behaved towards him.

Ratio: Despite the fact that Hill could no longer be treated as having established a blanket immunity, its policy factors still led to the denial of DoC to this claimant.

Front 10

Osman v Ferguson (1992)

Back 10

Police failed to respond adequately to fears raised by a campaign of harassment against the plaintiff's family and murder resulted.

Ratio: Despite Proximity and foreseeability the Hill policy factors lead to a finding of no DoC. Note the contrary outcome in ECtHR (Osman v UK)

Front 11

Phelps v Hillingdon (LBC) (2001)

Back 11

Despite recognizing the need for caution, the HL did not find a strong enough policy reasons to justify striking out these claims, which concerned education case and failure to diagnose and provide for pupil's special needs.

Front 12

Smith v Littlewoods (1987)

Back 12

HL no liability for a D who did not adequately protect his disused property, which was broken into by vandals who lit a fire damaging neighbouring premises.

Front 13

Stovin v Wise (1996)

Back 13

A local authority failed to remove a highway obstruction which later was involved in causing an accident.

Principle: There was not liablity because the matter was within the discretion of the highway authority and since the alleged wrong was an omission, "something more" was required.

Front 14

Topp v London Country Bus Ltd (1993)

Back 14

A bus driver negligently left eh bus with its keys next to a pub.

Lord Goff: Given the lack of foreseeabiliy of the intervention by the thief and the lack of proximity with hte victim a doc wouldn't be fair just nor reasonable.

Front 15

Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshiere Police (2008)

Back 15

A prosecution witness notified police of threats againsthim and was ultimately murdered.

Held: In some circumstances such a situation could give rise to a positive duty to provide protection, under the right to life in art. 2 ECHR. Here the facts did not support such a duty.

Front 16

X v Bedfordshire CC (1995)

Back 16

A negligence action was brought against a local authority social services department in respect of damage suffered.

Principle: In finding in favour of the defendant the HL gave a number of policy reasons according to which this public body would have benefit of a presumption against a duty of care. In this case no.