Lecture on Negligence: Duty of Care

Overview

• Establishing negligence requires proving three elements:
  1. Duty of care
  2. Breach of that duty
  3. Resulting damage
• Focus today is solely on proving the duty of care.

Key Case: Donoghue v Stevenson

• Established the modern law of negligence.
• Introduced the "neighbor principle."
  • Lord Atkin: "You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee will be likely to injure your neighbor."
  • "Neighbor" defined as persons closely affected by your acts.

Development of Duty of Care: Caparo v Dickman

• Three-Part Test for Duty of Care:
  1. Reasonable foreseeability of harm
  2. Proximity between claimant and defendant
  3. Fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty

Case Illustrations

Reasonable Foreseeability

• Kent v Griffiths
  • Ambulance delay led to harm; harm was foreseeable.
• Jolley v Sutton
  • Injury foreseeable even if exact harm not predicted.
• Bourhill v Young
  • Not foreseeable that bystander (not witnessing accident) would be affected.

Proximity

• Home Office v Dorset Yacht
  • Proximity due to physical closeness.
• Hill v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire
  • No proximity as police couldn’t predict the next victim.
• Osman v Ferguson
  • Proximity found; police aware of specific risk to family.

Fair, Just, and Reasonable

• Hill & Osman
  • Generally not fair to impose duty on police; risk of defensive policing.
• Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
  • Supreme Court found police liable for negligence causing personal injury. Hill doesn’t grant immunity to police.

Implications for Duty of Care

• Public Authority (e.g., police):
  • Cases like Hill suggest no duty due to defensive risk.
  • Robinson shows possible liability for personal injury.
• Non-Public Authority:
  • Generally fair to impose duty.

Summary Diagram

• Start with Donoghue v Stevenson (neighbor principle).
• Caparo three-stage test:
  • Reasonable foreseeability: Kent and Jolly (yes), Bourhill (no)
  • Proximity: Home Office and Osman (yes), Hill (no)
  • Fair, just, and reasonable: Police cases (debated), non-authority (usually yes)

Conclusion

• Establishing duty of care is complex, especially involving public authorities like the police.
• Next focus: Breach of duty.