Duty of care

Duty of care

- This is the legal concept which sets the situation in which s person can be liable to another in negligence.

The origin of the concept of duty of care is from Lord Atkin's "Neighbour principle"  in Donoghue v Stevenson, "you must take reasonable care to avoid acts and omissions which foreseeably injure your neoghbour".

The current test called "incremental approach" for duty of care is established in Caparo v Dickman. This test ask three questions;

- Is the damage or loss foreseeable?
- Is there a sufficient proximity between the defendant and the victim?
- Is it just, fair and reasonable to impose a duty of care?

Foreseeability
This is an objective test that asks "if a reasonable man would have foreseen some damage or harm to the claimant at the time of the negligence?".

- In Langley v Dray , the court found the defendant owing a duty of care as he by increasing the speed of his car to escape from the victim and increasing the risk of an accident, he should have foreseen that the victim will increase the speed of his car to chase the victim and therefore explain himself to the same risk.

_ In Kent v Griffith's, the court rules that the victim would not have suffered a heart attack if the ambulance arrive on time and therefore it was reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would have suffer some harm due to the delay.

Proximity

Proximity means closeness in terms of time, space or relationship. It must be prove that the defendant and the victim share proximity during the alleged negligence.

- Bournhill v Young states that the victim must be the direct and immediate victim of the negligence and must of in the immediate vicinity of the negligence.

- McLoughlin v O'Briam illustrates that the claimant must be the immediate victim or shares a close relationship with the victims like in this case, a wife and mother for the victims to claim. Another illustrative case is Watson v BBBC which the claimant and the defendant shares a participant and promoter relationship.

'Just, fair and reasonable' test

This test is referred as 'policy test' which allows judges to limit the extent of a negligence case in order to prevent courts from being flooded by claims that are simply determined through reference to foreseeability.


- Mulcahy v MOD illustrate this rule when the court held that no duty of care could be impose to soldiers in war zones as it would mean that the MOD will be liable to every soldier who suffered injuries while in the battlefield.

- Orange v CCWY held that police do not owe a duty of care to a person who is not a suicide risk.