Negligence – Duty of CareTort Law

© The Law Bank

Tort

Negligence

General principles – Duty of Care

1

Negligence – Duty of CareTort Law

© The Law Bank

Objectives

• Explain what is meant by the term ‘duty of care’

• Identify and explain the ‘neighbour test’ and

the Caparo three-part test

2

Negligence – Duty of CareTort Law

© The Law Bank

Definition of negligence

• Negligence is a tort (or civil wrong)

• Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks company 1856

– D owed a duty of care

– D breached that duty

– C suffered damage as a result of that breach (Causation)

– The damage suffered was not too Remote

3

Negligence – Duty of CareTort Law

© The Law Bank

When does a duty of care exist?

• Definition – a duty which one person owes to

another to take proper care of the other

• Concerns relationship between defendant and

claimant

• Must be such that there is an obligation upon the

defendant to take proper care to avoid causing

injury to the claimant in all circumstances of the

case

4

Negligence – Duty of CareTort Law

© The Law Bank

Established duty situations

• One road-user to another

• Employer to employee

• Manufacturer to consumer (Donoghue v

Stevenson)

• Doctor to patient

• Solicitor to client

5

Negligence – Duty of CareTort Law

© The Law Bank

The neighbour principle

• Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]

• You owe a duty of care to anyone you ought to

have in mind who might potentially be injured by

your act or omission

6

Negligence – Duty of CareTort Law

© The Law Bank

Lord Atkin -

• “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or

omissions which you can reasonably foresee

would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who,

then in law is my neighbour? The answer seems

to be persons who are so closely and directly

affected by my act that I ought reasonably to

have them in my contemplation as being so

affected when I am directing my mind to the acts

or omissions which are called in question.”

7

Negligence – Duty of CareTort Law

© The Law Bank

• This neighbour principle was used by judges

until

Caparo v Dickman 1990

• This test is only used if it is a novel case, if there

is already a pre-existing duty, Robinson v Chief

Constable of West Yorkshire 2018 and you

don’t need to apply the 3 criteria

8

Negligence – Duty of CareTort Law

© The Law Bank

Caparo Test

9

Was damage or harm reasonably foreseeable

Was there sufficient proximity of relationship?

Was it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?

Duty of care

Yes

Yes

Yes

No liability in

negligence

No

No

No

Negligence – Duty of CareTort Law

© The Law Bank

Damage or harm

reasonably foreseeable• This depends on the facts of the case

• Kent v Griffiths 2000

10

Negligence – Duty of CareTort Law

© The Law Bank

Proximity of relationship

• Even if the harm is foreseeable , a duty of care

will only exist if there is sufficient proximity of

relationship

• Bourhill v Young 1943

• Mcloughlin v O’Brien 1982

11

Negligence – Duty of CareTort Law

© The Law Bank

Fair, just and reasonable

• Hill v Chief Constable of west Yorkshire police

1990

12