DUTY OF CARE
~ Liability in Negligence ~
1. Duty of Care and the Neighbour Principle
A claimant must establish duty of care, breach of duty and causation. Duty of care is the first requirement in a negligence claim. Without a duty of care, liability in negligence cannot arise, even if harm is caused. A duty of care is a legal obligation to take reasonable care. The modern law of negligence began with Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]. Lord Atkin stated that a duty is owed to those closely and directly affected by one’s actions.
2. The Caparo Test (Novel Situations)
In novel situations, courts apply the three-stage test from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]. The test is applied with regard to policy considerations.
Foreseeability of Harm: The defendant must have been able to reasonably foresee harm to the claimant (Kent v Griffiths [2000]).
Proximity: There must be a sufficiently close relationship between claimant and defendant (Bourhill v Young [1943]).
Fair, Just and Reasonable: The court must consider whether imposing a duty is fair, just and reasonable (Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989]; (Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire CC [1997]).
3. Established Duties ( Caparo Does Not Apply)
The Caparo test is not a universal checklist. Established duties do not require Caparo to be reapplied (Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police[2018]).
Established Duties of Care:
Doctors and patients (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957]).
Employers and employees (Wilson & Clyde Coal Co v English [1938]).
Manufacturers and consumers (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]; Consumer Protection Act 1987).
Road users (Nettleship v Weston [1971]; Road Traffic Act 1988).
