TORT LAW CRYPT SHEET
W1: Duty of care (general negligence)
Negligence is the breach of a legal duty to take care by the defendant resulting in loss or
damage to the claimant
- Loss/damage duty of care owed breach causation remoteness defences
- “Although the claim is likely to fail at x stage, the court will continue to look at…”
Duty of care - KEY Precedents
© Nettleship v Weston [1971]: a driver owes a duty of care to other road users not to
cause them physical injury by careless driving. [road users]
© Fitzgerald v. Lane & Patel - drivers owe pedestrians a duty of care
© Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951]: medical professionals owe a duty of care to
patients once they have accepted them for treatment. [medical professionals]
© Baker v T.E. Hopkins & Son Ltd [1959]: Rescuer was owed a duty of care as it was
reasonably foreseeable that someone would seek to rescue the workers in danger.
[rescue services]
© Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018]: The police owe a duty of
care to the public to protect them from reasonably foreseeable physical injury when
carrying out an arrest [police]
NO precedent? consider whether a duty can be imposed by analogy with pre-existing
authority in the context of the Caparo criteria (Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990])
(1) Foreseeability
Must be foreseeable that defendant’s lack of care would cause the claimant harm
Objective test = what the reasonable person would be expected to foresee
(2) Proximity
Must be a relationship of sufficient closeness between claimant & defendant
(3) Fair, just and reasonableness
Broad analysis of social, political and economic impact on society as a whole
Policy considerations narrow/broaden the scope of claims
o Floodgates o Deterrence
o Insurance o Maintenance of high
o Crushing liability standards
o Defensive practices
, Liability for omissions
General Rule: You are not liable for a mere failure to act (an omission). Liability is only imposed on those who
cause injury or damage to another.
- Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987]
Exceptions to the general 1. Where there is a statutory duty to act
rule: 2. Where there is a contractual duty to act
3. Where the defendant has sufficient control over the claimant
4. Where the defendant assumes responsibility for the claimant
5. Where the defendant has created the risk through an omission
Exceptions to the general rule: a closer look
Exception Relevant case(s) Key Principles
2. Contractual Stansbie v Troman Defendant had a contractual duty to take reasonable care
[1948] of claimant’s property
3. Sufficient control Reeves v Police have a duty to protect a prisoner’s health, incl.
Commissioner of the possibility that they may attempt to take their own life.
Police for the
Metropolis [1999]
4. Assumed responsibility Barrett v Ministry of Once the defendant assumes responsibility for an
Defence [1995] individual’s welfare, they owe them a duty of care + to
summon the appropriate medical assistance
5. Created the risk Goldman v Hargrave If defendant knows of or ought to know about a danger,
[1967] they must take reasonable steps to mitigate this danger
Omissions and the emergency services
Emergency service Case name Principle
Police 1. Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police owe a duty of care to the witness
[1999] who informed on a suspect
2. Alexandrou v Oxford [1993] 4 All ER 328 Police owes no duty of care to respond to
emergency calls
3. Reeves v Commissioner of the Police for the Police owes a duty to protect the
Metropolis [1999] 3 All ER 897 individual they have assumed
responsibility for, including any attempt
to take their own life
4. Robinson v Chief Constable of West Police owe a duty of care to the public to
Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC protect them from reasonably foreseeable
physical injury when carrying out an
arrest
Fire Service 1. Capital and Counties plc v Hampshire Fire service owes no duty of care to attend
County Council [1997] QB 1004 a fire but if they do attend a fire, they owe
a duty not to make the situation worse
through a positive act
Ambulance 1. Kent v Griffiths & Others [2000] 2 All ER Ambulance service owes a duty of care to
474 respond to a 999 call within a reasonable
time
Liability for acts of third parties
General Rule: Liability is only imposed on those who DIRECTLY cause injury or damage
to another. NO such duty is imposed on a failure to prevent a third-party from causing harm
to another. There are FOUR exceptions to the general rule:
1. Where there is sufficient proximity between the defendant & claimant, and/or
, Case law suggests that claimant must be an identifiable victim + defendant must also
(through words or conduct) assume responsibility for the claimant
- Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009]
2. Where there is sufficient proximity between the defendant & third-party, and/or
3. Where the defendant created the danger, and/or
4. Where the risk was on the defendant’s premises
Public bodies and duty of care
Starting point: SAME principles apply to public bodies as apply to individuals
N.B. NO such duty of care will be imposed if it would be incompatible with the intentions of
the statutory scheme under which the public body operates.
+ duty of care will not automatically be imposed on a public body in relation to an omission
simply because the public body has a statutory duty or power to act.
- CN and GN v Poole Borough Council: council had power to take children into care,
but this was insufficient to show they had a duty to do so
**Court may conclude that difficult decisions about resourcing or other 'policy' matters =
does not give rise to a common law duty of care in negligence**
- Ultimately = the taxpayer who picks up the tab for damages
- Floodgates opening + police adopting defensive practices (Hill v Chief Constable of
West Yorkshire)
- Distinction between operational & policy matters: public body can be held liable for
OPERATIONAL but NOT policy matters
o Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire – way in which CS gas was
used (without considering the fire risk) = potential operational breach but
using the CS gas itself rather than a non-flammable alternative was a policy
decision court could NOT interfere with
- Army do NOT owe a duty to soldiers in battle conditions (Mulcahy v Ministry of
Defence)
W1: Duty of care (general negligence)
Negligence is the breach of a legal duty to take care by the defendant resulting in loss or
damage to the claimant
- Loss/damage duty of care owed breach causation remoteness defences
- “Although the claim is likely to fail at x stage, the court will continue to look at…”
Duty of care - KEY Precedents
© Nettleship v Weston [1971]: a driver owes a duty of care to other road users not to
cause them physical injury by careless driving. [road users]
© Fitzgerald v. Lane & Patel - drivers owe pedestrians a duty of care
© Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951]: medical professionals owe a duty of care to
patients once they have accepted them for treatment. [medical professionals]
© Baker v T.E. Hopkins & Son Ltd [1959]: Rescuer was owed a duty of care as it was
reasonably foreseeable that someone would seek to rescue the workers in danger.
[rescue services]
© Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018]: The police owe a duty of
care to the public to protect them from reasonably foreseeable physical injury when
carrying out an arrest [police]
NO precedent? consider whether a duty can be imposed by analogy with pre-existing
authority in the context of the Caparo criteria (Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990])
(1) Foreseeability
Must be foreseeable that defendant’s lack of care would cause the claimant harm
Objective test = what the reasonable person would be expected to foresee
(2) Proximity
Must be a relationship of sufficient closeness between claimant & defendant
(3) Fair, just and reasonableness
Broad analysis of social, political and economic impact on society as a whole
Policy considerations narrow/broaden the scope of claims
o Floodgates o Deterrence
o Insurance o Maintenance of high
o Crushing liability standards
o Defensive practices
, Liability for omissions
General Rule: You are not liable for a mere failure to act (an omission). Liability is only imposed on those who
cause injury or damage to another.
- Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987]
Exceptions to the general 1. Where there is a statutory duty to act
rule: 2. Where there is a contractual duty to act
3. Where the defendant has sufficient control over the claimant
4. Where the defendant assumes responsibility for the claimant
5. Where the defendant has created the risk through an omission
Exceptions to the general rule: a closer look
Exception Relevant case(s) Key Principles
2. Contractual Stansbie v Troman Defendant had a contractual duty to take reasonable care
[1948] of claimant’s property
3. Sufficient control Reeves v Police have a duty to protect a prisoner’s health, incl.
Commissioner of the possibility that they may attempt to take their own life.
Police for the
Metropolis [1999]
4. Assumed responsibility Barrett v Ministry of Once the defendant assumes responsibility for an
Defence [1995] individual’s welfare, they owe them a duty of care + to
summon the appropriate medical assistance
5. Created the risk Goldman v Hargrave If defendant knows of or ought to know about a danger,
[1967] they must take reasonable steps to mitigate this danger
Omissions and the emergency services
Emergency service Case name Principle
Police 1. Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police owe a duty of care to the witness
[1999] who informed on a suspect
2. Alexandrou v Oxford [1993] 4 All ER 328 Police owes no duty of care to respond to
emergency calls
3. Reeves v Commissioner of the Police for the Police owes a duty to protect the
Metropolis [1999] 3 All ER 897 individual they have assumed
responsibility for, including any attempt
to take their own life
4. Robinson v Chief Constable of West Police owe a duty of care to the public to
Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC protect them from reasonably foreseeable
physical injury when carrying out an
arrest
Fire Service 1. Capital and Counties plc v Hampshire Fire service owes no duty of care to attend
County Council [1997] QB 1004 a fire but if they do attend a fire, they owe
a duty not to make the situation worse
through a positive act
Ambulance 1. Kent v Griffiths & Others [2000] 2 All ER Ambulance service owes a duty of care to
474 respond to a 999 call within a reasonable
time
Liability for acts of third parties
General Rule: Liability is only imposed on those who DIRECTLY cause injury or damage
to another. NO such duty is imposed on a failure to prevent a third-party from causing harm
to another. There are FOUR exceptions to the general rule:
1. Where there is sufficient proximity between the defendant & claimant, and/or
, Case law suggests that claimant must be an identifiable victim + defendant must also
(through words or conduct) assume responsibility for the claimant
- Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009]
2. Where there is sufficient proximity between the defendant & third-party, and/or
3. Where the defendant created the danger, and/or
4. Where the risk was on the defendant’s premises
Public bodies and duty of care
Starting point: SAME principles apply to public bodies as apply to individuals
N.B. NO such duty of care will be imposed if it would be incompatible with the intentions of
the statutory scheme under which the public body operates.
+ duty of care will not automatically be imposed on a public body in relation to an omission
simply because the public body has a statutory duty or power to act.
- CN and GN v Poole Borough Council: council had power to take children into care,
but this was insufficient to show they had a duty to do so
**Court may conclude that difficult decisions about resourcing or other 'policy' matters =
does not give rise to a common law duty of care in negligence**
- Ultimately = the taxpayer who picks up the tab for damages
- Floodgates opening + police adopting defensive practices (Hill v Chief Constable of
West Yorkshire)
- Distinction between operational & policy matters: public body can be held liable for
OPERATIONAL but NOT policy matters
o Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire – way in which CS gas was
used (without considering the fire risk) = potential operational breach but
using the CS gas itself rather than a non-flammable alternative was a policy
decision court could NOT interfere with
- Army do NOT owe a duty to soldiers in battle conditions (Mulcahy v Ministry of
Defence)
