Duty of Care
Smith v Littlewoods-if you are unaware of a risk, you cannot be held liable
Dorset Yacht-it was foreseeable for them to cause damage when they escaped
Donoghue v Stevenson-neighbour is someone that would be closely and directly affected by
behaviour so you must have reasonably thought about them
Robinson v CC for West Yorkshire-positive act of arresting person that caused injury to
person on the street. Potential injury so it would be reasonably foreseeable so they would
be liable
Hill v CC of West Yorkshire-duty of care arises in special circumstances only. Police liable for
injury for their acts and omissions. No duty to apprehend unknown criminal. No duty to
individuals who suffer harm. The only exception to this rule is where the failure to
apprehend the criminal creates an exceptional added risk, different from the general risk
from criminal activity to the public at large, so as to establish a sufficient proximity of
relationship between the police officers and victims of crime.
Osman-followed Hill. Hard to invoke articles
Michael v CC of South Wales-no proximity between the police and the unknown assailant.
Not to protect individual
Caparo-proximity, foreseeability and reasonable
Phelps v Hillingdon-authorities have a duty of care to educate (special needs)
Kent v Griffiths-specific assurance (time-wise. 7-8 minutes) and detrimental reliance
Darnley-must not be purposely misleading which would lead to foreseeable harm
Alexandrou-if there is no contractual relationship, there is no duty
Psychiatric Harm
McLoughlin-blood, mud and oil test/ must be more than mere grief or emotion (ICD11 or
DSM5), time limits
Hambrook-must have seen it, not what was heard
Dulieu-zone of danger, easy to foresee harm
Alcock-secondary victim, unaided senses, sudden assault on nervous system, close ties of
love and affection (parent and child or spouses)
Bourhill-reasonably foreseeable and ordinary fortitude
Reily-natural reaction is not a mental illness
Page v Smith-primary victims do not need to prove psychiatric injury was foreseeable and
thin skull rule
McFarlane-must be or reasonable believe to be in zone of danger
Brice v Brown-as long as psychiatric harm is foreseeable, it is allowed. Even if there is an
existing mental illness
Galli Atkinson-aftermath can be from the time of the accident to after the morgue.
Unbroken chain of events so harm is allowed
White v CC of South Yorkshire-rescuers must have the same process as a secondary victim.
Employer must taken reasonable steps to prevent physical harm if they are not exposed to
harm
Chadwick-volunteers are treated as primary victims, even if there was no fear for children
or own safety, shock foreseeable, must have foreseen rescuers and d must be liable for
damages
Smith v Littlewoods-if you are unaware of a risk, you cannot be held liable
Dorset Yacht-it was foreseeable for them to cause damage when they escaped
Donoghue v Stevenson-neighbour is someone that would be closely and directly affected by
behaviour so you must have reasonably thought about them
Robinson v CC for West Yorkshire-positive act of arresting person that caused injury to
person on the street. Potential injury so it would be reasonably foreseeable so they would
be liable
Hill v CC of West Yorkshire-duty of care arises in special circumstances only. Police liable for
injury for their acts and omissions. No duty to apprehend unknown criminal. No duty to
individuals who suffer harm. The only exception to this rule is where the failure to
apprehend the criminal creates an exceptional added risk, different from the general risk
from criminal activity to the public at large, so as to establish a sufficient proximity of
relationship between the police officers and victims of crime.
Osman-followed Hill. Hard to invoke articles
Michael v CC of South Wales-no proximity between the police and the unknown assailant.
Not to protect individual
Caparo-proximity, foreseeability and reasonable
Phelps v Hillingdon-authorities have a duty of care to educate (special needs)
Kent v Griffiths-specific assurance (time-wise. 7-8 minutes) and detrimental reliance
Darnley-must not be purposely misleading which would lead to foreseeable harm
Alexandrou-if there is no contractual relationship, there is no duty
Psychiatric Harm
McLoughlin-blood, mud and oil test/ must be more than mere grief or emotion (ICD11 or
DSM5), time limits
Hambrook-must have seen it, not what was heard
Dulieu-zone of danger, easy to foresee harm
Alcock-secondary victim, unaided senses, sudden assault on nervous system, close ties of
love and affection (parent and child or spouses)
Bourhill-reasonably foreseeable and ordinary fortitude
Reily-natural reaction is not a mental illness
Page v Smith-primary victims do not need to prove psychiatric injury was foreseeable and
thin skull rule
McFarlane-must be or reasonable believe to be in zone of danger
Brice v Brown-as long as psychiatric harm is foreseeable, it is allowed. Even if there is an
existing mental illness
Galli Atkinson-aftermath can be from the time of the accident to after the morgue.
Unbroken chain of events so harm is allowed
White v CC of South Yorkshire-rescuers must have the same process as a secondary victim.
Employer must taken reasonable steps to prevent physical harm if they are not exposed to
harm
Chadwick-volunteers are treated as primary victims, even if there was no fear for children
or own safety, shock foreseeable, must have foreseen rescuers and d must be liable for
damages
