Duty of Care
Donoghue - 1932
- Lord Atkin - ‘Neighbour Principle’
Anns - 1978
- Lord Wilberforce - two-stage test
- ‘proximity’
Caparo - 1990
- Lord Bridge - three stage test - foreseeability,proximity and fair,just and reasonable
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Club - 1970
- Third party - owe duty - if damage was ‘foreseeable’
Bourhill v Young
- No duty owed ‘not a foreseeable victim’ - ‘reasonably anticipated’
Lord Denning - moved for a shift in approach - Spartan Steel - 1973
- ‘I think the time has come to discard these which have proved so elusive’
Robison - 2018 - Lord Reid
- Current Approach - Duty of Care
- ‘Follow the precedents’
- ‘Cases’ - ‘question of duty of care’ that had ‘not previously been decided’
- ‘Court - closet analogies’
- ‘Maintaining the coherence of the law’
- ‘ in order to decide whether the existence of a duty of care would be fair,just and
reasonable’
Liability in negligence - based on public perception of moral wrongdoing - remedy
Broader Ration - Lord Atkin - Donoghue 1932
- ‘Take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee
would be likely to injure’
Liability for omissions and acts of third parties
- Smith v Littlewoods - 1987
- Lord Goff - Common law does not impose liability for what are called ‘pure
omissions’
- Stovin v Wise - 1996 - Lord Hoffman
- ‘Sounds reasons why omissions require different treatment from positive conduct’
- Three exceptions
- Control
- Assumed responsibility
- Creation or adoption of risk
Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank plc - 2006
- Lord Walker
- ‘ increasingly clear recognition that the three-fold test (Caparo)... does not
provide an easily answer to all our guidelines, but only a set of fairly blunt tools’
Trespass to the Person
Donoghue - 1932
- Lord Atkin - ‘Neighbour Principle’
Anns - 1978
- Lord Wilberforce - two-stage test
- ‘proximity’
Caparo - 1990
- Lord Bridge - three stage test - foreseeability,proximity and fair,just and reasonable
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Club - 1970
- Third party - owe duty - if damage was ‘foreseeable’
Bourhill v Young
- No duty owed ‘not a foreseeable victim’ - ‘reasonably anticipated’
Lord Denning - moved for a shift in approach - Spartan Steel - 1973
- ‘I think the time has come to discard these which have proved so elusive’
Robison - 2018 - Lord Reid
- Current Approach - Duty of Care
- ‘Follow the precedents’
- ‘Cases’ - ‘question of duty of care’ that had ‘not previously been decided’
- ‘Court - closet analogies’
- ‘Maintaining the coherence of the law’
- ‘ in order to decide whether the existence of a duty of care would be fair,just and
reasonable’
Liability in negligence - based on public perception of moral wrongdoing - remedy
Broader Ration - Lord Atkin - Donoghue 1932
- ‘Take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee
would be likely to injure’
Liability for omissions and acts of third parties
- Smith v Littlewoods - 1987
- Lord Goff - Common law does not impose liability for what are called ‘pure
omissions’
- Stovin v Wise - 1996 - Lord Hoffman
- ‘Sounds reasons why omissions require different treatment from positive conduct’
- Three exceptions
- Control
- Assumed responsibility
- Creation or adoption of risk
Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank plc - 2006
- Lord Walker
- ‘ increasingly clear recognition that the three-fold test (Caparo)... does not
provide an easily answer to all our guidelines, but only a set of fairly blunt tools’
Trespass to the Person
