Karteikarten
Chapter 2
Karten in diesem Stapel (18)
- 1Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990]In use today.
Three stage test:
1. Reasonable foreseeability of harm
2. Relationship of proximity
3. Fair just and reasonable to impose a DoC - 2Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]Neighbour Principle
Reasonable foreseeability of harm to ones neighbour (somebody directly affected by one's actions). - 3HISTORY OF DUTY OF CARE Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970]"The neighbour principle ought to apply unless there is some justification or valid explanation for it's exclusion"
- 4HISTORY OF DUTY OF CARE Bourhill v Young [1943]No Duty of Care was owed as the claimant's injury was not reasonably foreseeable.
- 5Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988]Police Immunity
No Duty of Care owed to potential victims. To impose such a duty would restrict the exercise of police discretion in their investigations. - 6Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2005]Police Immunity
Racist attack & friend murdered.
No duty of care owed - core principles of Hill applied. - 7Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire [2008]Police immunity - witness in criminal trial killed by the accused. Police were aware that accused was intimidating C.
No DoC owed. - 8Capital & Counties v Hampshire County Council [1997]Rescue Services
Duty of care will only arise if the intervention of the rescue service makes the situation worse than it would otherwise have been - 9Kent v Griffiths [2000]Rescue Services
Ambulance - Duty of Care owed for negligent delay in arriving. - 10Stovin v Wise [1996]Public bodies - failure to exercise statutory power
Could give rise to a private law action if:
1) It would have been irrational for the authority not to have exercised its power in the circumstances
2) there existed clear grounds for discerning policy in the statute to confer a right to compensation - 11Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council [2004]Provision of road markings was different from the duty to keep the road in good repair.
The public interest in road safety did not extend to a private duty to the road user. - 12X v Bedfordshire County Council [1995]D had failed to investigate or prevent further harm from parental abuse.
Where there is statutory discretion imparted upon the authority, this discretion is not actionable at common law - 13Smith v Littlewoods [1987]Generally no duty of affirmative action. Except:
1. Special relationship between C & D
2. Special relationship between D & TP who causes damage
3. Stranger creates a source of danger on D's land, of which D is aware, but about which he does nothing. - 14Chester v Afshar [2004]Failure to warn a patient of the risks associated with treatment may give rise to liability.
- 15Z v United Kingdom [2002]ECtHR Case.
Immunity - Not a breach of Art 6
Claimants had been able to pursue legal arguments to highest ct in the land.
H/L not recognising a DoC did not in itself operate as an exclusionary rule - 16Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978]Created a two stage test.
1. There must be a relationship of proximity between the claimant and defendant such that the harm was reasonably foreseeable; and
2. There must be no policy reason which would restrict or extinguish the duty.
Criticised as too easy to create a prima facie duty of care. - 17Knightly v Johns [1982]Police
Operational negligence may give rise to a duty situation.
E.g. driving a car too fast. - 18Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015]Informed consent - patients have a right to be informed about all significant risks of treatment.
Objective - not based on what doctor thought was reas. to disclose
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Level 6 Law of Tort (Negligence: The Duty of Care – General Principles) Karteikarten am Chapter 2, erstellt von Dave Ballam am 26/07/2017.
- Erstellt von
- Dave Ballam · Jul 2017
- Aktualisiert
- 17 Dez 2017
- Aufrufe
- 0
- Bewertung