Negligence
Liability for breach of a duty of care
Step 1: Establish that D owes C a duty of care 2
Step 2: Establish that the duty has been breached 4
Likelihood of harm 4
Severity or Gravity 4
Cost of avoiding risk 5
Utility 5
Step 3: Identify harm/loss to C and establish a causal link with the breach 6
A] Factual Causation 6
Material Contribution 6
Material Increase in Risk 6
Loss of a Chance 7
Multiple Events 7
B] Legal Causation 7
Road tra c collisions 8
Medical negligence 8
Deliberate Acts 8
C’s own actions 8
Act of nature 8
Type of Harm 9
Manner of Harm 9
Magnitude of Harm 9
Eggshell skull principle 9
Policy considerations 10
SAAMCO Principle 10
Step 4: Consider possible Defences 10
1] Illegality/Serious Immorality 10
2] Volenti non t injuria 10
3] Contributory Negligence 11
1
 ffi fi 
, - To succeed in a claim of negligence, C must show that:
• D owes C a duty of care
• The duty of care has been breached
• C has suffered relevant loss or damage as a result of the breach
• The damage is not too remote i.e.
- In law by D’s negligence or
- Within the scope of the duty.
Step 1: Establish that D owes C a duty of care
- Establishing a duty of care is analysing the relationship between the two parties
(proximity and foreseeability – the neighbour test in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932])
- Strongly endorsed in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970].
- Policy considerations exempt certain cases being brought forward i.e. the two-stage test
established in Anns v Merton LBC [1978]:
• Is there a sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood? In which case, a prima
facie duty arises.
• If so, are there any policy considerations which ought to negate, reduce, or limit the
scope of the duty?
Q.1] IS THERE IS A DUTY OF CARE?
Scenario Cases
Drivers: Nettleship v Weston [1971] - Drivers (including learners) hold a duty of
care for pedestrians and passengers.
Mans eld v Weetabix [1997] – a driver suffering from a condition that
impairs their driving should still hold a duty of care, unless the condition
is too sudden. But the condition had to be taken into consideration,
altering the standard where D is unaware of the mental impairment.
Doctors: Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] – Bolam test
— A member of a recognised profession or trade is judged by the
standards of a reasonably competent practitioner
Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority – Depends if within the
context of their profession, their action was illogical
Public Pure Omissions:
Authorities: Stovin v Wise [1996] – no liability for omissions [Exception see Dorset].
Generally, Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council [2004]
can’t hold a X and Y v London Borough of Hounslow [2010] HLR 4
duty of care
in pure Positive Acts:
omissions as X & ors (minors) v Bedfordshire CC [1995] 2 AC 633
well as East Suffolk Rivers Catchment v Kent [1940]: If you do not owe a duty
positive acts. and intervene you won’t be liable even if acting carelessly unless you
worsen the situation.
Emergency Services
2

fi
Liability for breach of a duty of care
Step 1: Establish that D owes C a duty of care 2
Step 2: Establish that the duty has been breached 4
Likelihood of harm 4
Severity or Gravity 4
Cost of avoiding risk 5
Utility 5
Step 3: Identify harm/loss to C and establish a causal link with the breach 6
A] Factual Causation 6
Material Contribution 6
Material Increase in Risk 6
Loss of a Chance 7
Multiple Events 7
B] Legal Causation 7
Road tra c collisions 8
Medical negligence 8
Deliberate Acts 8
C’s own actions 8
Act of nature 8
Type of Harm 9
Manner of Harm 9
Magnitude of Harm 9
Eggshell skull principle 9
Policy considerations 10
SAAMCO Principle 10
Step 4: Consider possible Defences 10
1] Illegality/Serious Immorality 10
2] Volenti non t injuria 10
3] Contributory Negligence 11
1
 ffi fi 
, - To succeed in a claim of negligence, C must show that:
• D owes C a duty of care
• The duty of care has been breached
• C has suffered relevant loss or damage as a result of the breach
• The damage is not too remote i.e.
- In law by D’s negligence or
- Within the scope of the duty.
Step 1: Establish that D owes C a duty of care
- Establishing a duty of care is analysing the relationship between the two parties
(proximity and foreseeability – the neighbour test in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932])
- Strongly endorsed in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970].
- Policy considerations exempt certain cases being brought forward i.e. the two-stage test
established in Anns v Merton LBC [1978]:
• Is there a sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood? In which case, a prima
facie duty arises.
• If so, are there any policy considerations which ought to negate, reduce, or limit the
scope of the duty?
Q.1] IS THERE IS A DUTY OF CARE?
Scenario Cases
Drivers: Nettleship v Weston [1971] - Drivers (including learners) hold a duty of
care for pedestrians and passengers.
Mans eld v Weetabix [1997] – a driver suffering from a condition that
impairs their driving should still hold a duty of care, unless the condition
is too sudden. But the condition had to be taken into consideration,
altering the standard where D is unaware of the mental impairment.
Doctors: Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] – Bolam test
— A member of a recognised profession or trade is judged by the
standards of a reasonably competent practitioner
Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority – Depends if within the
context of their profession, their action was illogical
Public Pure Omissions:
Authorities: Stovin v Wise [1996] – no liability for omissions [Exception see Dorset].
Generally, Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council [2004]
can’t hold a X and Y v London Borough of Hounslow [2010] HLR 4
duty of care
in pure Positive Acts:
omissions as X & ors (minors) v Bedfordshire CC [1995] 2 AC 633
well as East Suffolk Rivers Catchment v Kent [1940]: If you do not owe a duty
positive acts. and intervene you won’t be liable even if acting carelessly unless you
worsen the situation.
Emergency Services
2

fi
