Negligence: Duty Of Care
The elements of establishing Negligence:
Duty + Breach + (causation-remoteness) – defenses = negligence
Donoghue v. Stevenson:
Facts: Opaque bottle with remains of decomposed snails
Lord Atkin established the general principle (the ‘neighbor principle’)
Neighbor principle = one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or
omissions, which you can reasonably foresee, would injure your neighbor.
Neighbors = those who are ‘closely & directly’ affected by ones acts.
Caparo v. Dickman:
Facts: Investor relied on published report that had been prepared carelessly
by the company’s auditor.
Caparo states that when establishing a duty of care the following must be
satisfied …
1. Could D have reasonably foreseen that his negligence would cause
harm to C?
2. Is there sufficiently proximate relationship between D and C?
3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose duty?
Foreseeability
- Would a reasonable person have foreseen the harm?
- Attorney General of British Virgin Island v. Hartwell
It was reasonably foreseeable that a police officer would take gun
& shoot his ex.
Proximity
- Factors relevant to establishing proximity
1) Closeness of the relationship between D & C
Osman v. Ferguson – proximate relationship by police for
school boys family
Everett v. Comojo – proximate relationship between
nightclub owner & customer
2) Assumption of responsibility
Kent v. Griffitsh – ambulance service assumed
responsibility when saying that the ambulance was on its
way
3) Type of Loss
Financial loss requires a higher degree of closeness than
say personal injury
Fair, just & reasonable
- Relevant factors of what is fair, just & reasonable …
I. Whether courts would be flooded by cases similar to C’s if the law
recognizes C’s claim
II. Whether D acts for collective welfare
III. Whether the conduct only involves an omission?
The elements of establishing Negligence:
Duty + Breach + (causation-remoteness) – defenses = negligence
Donoghue v. Stevenson:
Facts: Opaque bottle with remains of decomposed snails
Lord Atkin established the general principle (the ‘neighbor principle’)
Neighbor principle = one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or
omissions, which you can reasonably foresee, would injure your neighbor.
Neighbors = those who are ‘closely & directly’ affected by ones acts.
Caparo v. Dickman:
Facts: Investor relied on published report that had been prepared carelessly
by the company’s auditor.
Caparo states that when establishing a duty of care the following must be
satisfied …
1. Could D have reasonably foreseen that his negligence would cause
harm to C?
2. Is there sufficiently proximate relationship between D and C?
3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose duty?
Foreseeability
- Would a reasonable person have foreseen the harm?
- Attorney General of British Virgin Island v. Hartwell
It was reasonably foreseeable that a police officer would take gun
& shoot his ex.
Proximity
- Factors relevant to establishing proximity
1) Closeness of the relationship between D & C
Osman v. Ferguson – proximate relationship by police for
school boys family
Everett v. Comojo – proximate relationship between
nightclub owner & customer
2) Assumption of responsibility
Kent v. Griffitsh – ambulance service assumed
responsibility when saying that the ambulance was on its
way
3) Type of Loss
Financial loss requires a higher degree of closeness than
say personal injury
Fair, just & reasonable
- Relevant factors of what is fair, just & reasonable …
I. Whether courts would be flooded by cases similar to C’s if the law
recognizes C’s claim
II. Whether D acts for collective welfare
III. Whether the conduct only involves an omission?
