Duty of Care

There are 5 instances where duty of care gives rise to a special test:
(i) Liability for
(ii) liability
(iii)
(iv) harm
(v)

Duty of care has gone through 3 main stages of development:

1.
Prior to this case, there were only instances of "".
Negligence as a tort did not exist until
Donoghue created the principle of duty of care. The neighbourhood principle was established by . This can be still be referred to in cases where there is a relationship.

2. B.C.
Redefined to limit the amount of claims. created a 2-stage test:
1. Sufficient relationship of where D's may be likely to cause damage to P.
2. Considerations of whether there are any which may limit the .

DC overruled the Anns test - the Courts recognised the importance of .

3. Plc
test for duty of care:
1. Foreseeability ()
2. (added in the middle of the two processes)
3. (MacFarlane v HA)

= making things worse
Non-feasance = failing to
created the distinction in .

Generally, there is in tort law. This also applies to , unless they created the situation.

The do not owe the public a duty of care (), apart from the . They owe a duty as soon as they from the individual.

A duty of :

The court will recognise three main situations.
1. D contributes to the ();
2. D for C's (, Kent v Griffiths); and,
3. D's occupation of an of responsibility

Special :
(Hahn v ; v Harris; )
Teacher/ (Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis)
Doctor/patient ()
(Goldman v )

The Courts recognise that a is also owed to the by the person who created the .

Public

Public authorities are treated in a by the courts. officers are generally granted , whereas are treated more harshly.
They tend to be sued for an omission, but generally have no for .

Held: D was not liable for the road accident - it was a (basic no duty rule applied).

v Calderdale Met BC
Held: the duty of the public authority could not be beyond their , which was to maintain the . Drivers themselves are responsible for their own (Lord ).

X v
5 separate claims all heard together simultaneously.
2 cases, 3 services cases

1st claim - were abused by their parents. The were notified by but it took them to do something about it.
2nd claim - a child identified his by his first name. The local thought it was the mother's , however, it was the name of a . The local authority were quick to remove him from his so his mother brought a claim against them.
3rd, 4th and 5th claims - claims from claimants who were suing in relation to their . Cs argued that they had not been as having , and therefore this them later in life.

The claims failed because there were 5 making it unfair, unjust and to impose a duty of care in those situations -
1. A would cut across the whole statutory system set up for the protection of children at risk.
2. The task of the local authority in dealing with such children is '.'
3. The spectre of liability would perhaps cause the local authorities to adapt a more cautious and defensive approach to their duties.
4. The uneasy relationship between the public authority employee and the would become a
5. There were available in the form of the procedures or an investigation by the local government ombudsman.

In this case, created an approach to duty in these situations -
1. Will the enquiry into D's conduct involve a consideration of any ?
2. Has the D authority acted the ambit of its statutorily-conferred discretion.
3. At the fair, just and reasonableness stage of , must be taken into account.

Local authority wrongly closed down a . C's lost money and tried to sue D on the basis of .
Held: the recognition of a duty of care in negligence policy - D owe C a duty of care.

C wanted to sue the police for failing to school teacher, Osman.
Held: although C was a , it wasn't fair, to impose liability on the police and to expect them to .

Hill v
The case. C was the mother of the Yorkshire Ripper's latest victim, and wanted to sue the police for their failure to him, which she argued led to the of her daughter.
Held: it would be unfair to because the police could not have predicted that she would have been a . She had no .
: would cause and in further claims.

C argued that his (Article ) had been breached.
Held: the Court agreed - the had been too quick to throw out his claim.
This caused an uproar amongst academics and the judiciary - courts the decision as that they were never allowed to use policy in order to arising in negligence.

Barrett v
C claimed against the local authority for that had gone wrong in his life. His mother had him, and the should have ensured that he had stayed in contact with his .
Held: the court struck out the claim as disclosing no cause of action.
Eventually in the HL, C won his case.

The local authority failed to notice C's , and so he brought a claim for his failure to get a
Held: D was liable. A local can be liable for its failures to provide appropriate educational support to those it had a .

The from X v brought a claim before the for a breach of Article 6. They assumed they would succeed after .
Held: claim rejected. carefully in Osman.

JD v
in one.
Parents were of harming their children. removed the children from their homes. Parents sued the .
Held: for child claimants, the decision in is not applicable. The essentially overruled the House of Lords. The parents were not to sue. This only applies where parents are of harm.

C was a friend of . He was by the police, and accused of him. This lead C to suffer so he brought an action against them.
Held: claim failed - principle applies.
This demonstrates how far the Courts will go to the police.

Michael v
V was in an . She brought it to an end but her became violent. She called the police but it was which police service should have responded to her call as she lived on the . Her call was mistakenly held to be a ' call', and she was unfortunately by her partner in the meantime.
Held: still applies. Where negligence applies, liability.

Where liability in tort can be imposed on one person for harm actually by another.
It must be distinguished from a form of liability.
Third party liability is a form of ordinary liability which is triggered by the .

Founding case of third party liability:
There is an existence of a to control the actions of a in order to prevent being caused to a particular class of , in situations in which it can be shown:
(i) that there is a strong of authority and control between the responsible D and the D third party;
(ii) that C comes within a class of potential ; and
(iii) that the harm-causing of the third party was at least something to occur in the circumstances.

Possible application of HO v Dorset Yacht:
(i) Relationship between and inmates, to prevent inmates from to one another ().
Duty based on existence of 2 special relationships of proximity - one between D and the third party harmdoer and another as between D and V.
Extension of such liability to cover acts of committed by prisoners known to have such tendencies (

(ii) Relationship between health
Palmer v - victim needs a ().
Actions against health authorities based on an alleged failure to prevent them from engaging in will be excluded on grounds of ().

(iii) relationship
Policy considerations make it difficult to establish the for the acts of their children.
An will only arise where the parent has actively contributed to the risk of harm, e.g. by purchasing their child a ().
Other persons a child are likely to come under this category () - but note ().
Parents are not under an automatic duty to protect their children from ().

Liability in respect of the
v MoD and v MoD - a is recognised on the basis of an .
Note: - if you are , the harm suffered is . A duty is always owed but it won't be if harm does occur.

Liability in
- referee sued by C, who suffered a after a on top of him, for failing to implement proper rules during the game.
Held: D was liable because it was his to ensure the safety of the game.

Liability of
v Met BC - trespassers caused a fire in an . The council were held for a breach of duty.

The courts used to not allow claims for because it is and there is no way of its . ()

v White
Held: an action could lie in negligence for arising from a for one's own immediate .

Held: Although she was outside of the , recovery was allowed - D suffered as a result of her children in an accident.

McLoughlin v
Held: It was that a would visit her husband and child in hospital following an accident, so a was owed to the mother in respect of .

victims

Alcock v Chief Constable of
The Courts wanted to limit liability to avoid opening the to many claims for following the . The House of Lords set out the .
Primary victim: someone involved as a in the relevant incident causing psychiatric harm.
: individual's psychiatric harm stems from others injuries.
Test: C must satisfy the following criteria:
1. A close tie of

2. Witness the event with their

3. to the event itself or its

4. Psychiatric injury must be a result of a

Galli-Atkinson v
Claim brought by the mother of a girl who was t. She was told that she wasn't allowed to see her daughter in the . When she eventually did see her two hours later, she suffered as a result.
Held: 2 hours is , therefore the test could be .

, Brock v and Wild v University Hospital:
There needs to be for psychiatric harm to establish in time and space.

Clarified the position of victims.
Must prove you were in the and the harm was .

White v Chief Constable of
Claim brought by who had carried dead bodies at the disaster. They argued for .
Held: it would not be in the to grant them special status. They needed to satisfy the like everybody else.

Held: C did not satisfy the test. The court introduced an extra stage for . There was no duty of care owed because it would be bad for and they didn't want D to be sued in cases where harm was . It interferes with .

& Insulating Co
Pleural plaques alone = not (were previously).
Knowledge that they were in C's caused him harm.
Court threw out the claim at the DOC stage - only applies to who have fear from a . His harm related to fear that something may occur in the - harm therefore not .

Problems with the victim distinction

W v
given a boy who had sexually assaulted his own . The local authority knew. Their own were then . The parents suffered psychological as a result.
Held: the parents were - the could be in this case.

Father went to see his baby, but the nurse mistakenly him that it had . He suffered harm as a result.
Held: father was a .
Policy decision: the Court wouldn't expect many of these so the wouldn't open.

stress claims

Hatton v and CC
Issue of disputed - the House of Lords confirmed the idea.

Daw v Intel Corporation
Referral to does not satisfy a duty.

Butchart v
Psychiatric harm was , therefore a duty was owed.

C suffered psychiatric harm as a result of her own blow up.
Held: a is owed because it is that you would suffer in relation to your own .

General principle in negligence = for pure economic loss ().
Spartan Steel - authority for the distinction between and economic loss.

Pure economic loss and

London BC
Tried to convert to property damage so that C could recover in . However, the property was already when C bought it. The court said that could be linked to as a special case of .
Held: it was a case of pure economic loss, so C recover.

v Church Commissioners of England
Tried to further justify the and defective buildings as being property damage.
: if structure was made up of and only 1 structure was defective, the individual component would be treated as . If it affected other components, it would be .

Murphy v DC
House defective with faulty . House of Lords said it was , which cannot be recovered.

C's interested in entering into and asked to obtain a from the D bank. It indicated that they were financially stable when they weren't. C lost £17k, but couldn't recover. They sued the bank for the reference. The case failed because D had issued a . However, if there was no valid disclaimer, a small exception could be narrowly applied:
There must be an , and C must rely on that assumption to their detriment.

Esso Petroleum v Mardon
Held: Esso had assumed and had knowledge of the potential consequences. They were held liable.

Chaudhry v Prabhakar
Held: D had assumed responsibility for the financial interest of his friend, so he was and was therefore liable.

Held: Hedley Byrne applied but not satisfied - was owed. There was not sufficient proximity between Caparo and the auditors since the auditors were not aware of the existence of nor the purpose for which the accounts were being used by them.

C bought a house relying on a survey carried out by D. D carelessly valued the house for more than it was worth. C bought the house and wanted to sue D for pure economic loss.
The court said that C was financially naive in that she should have got a , so therefore a Hedley Byrne relationship was not satisfied.

James McNaughton v
Six factors set out by - but they don't operate in a mechanical fashion:
(1) the purpose for which the statement was made. (2) the purpose for which the was communicated . (3) the relationship between the advisor, the advisee and any relevant third party. (4) the size of any class to which the advisee belongs. (5) the state of knowledge of the advisor. (6)

v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis
Claimant was a police officer. He wanted to apply to go to the police service in Northern Ireland. Whilst in the Metropolitan police force, he benefited from an - he wanted to know if he would still benefit from it in Northern Ireland. He rang the police station in London and asked, and they said that he would, when actually they had no idea. In reliance, he went ahead with the transfer. He lost money so sued D, on the basis of a relationship.

West Bromwich FC v El-Softy
Footballer suffered a knee injury. He consulted the D doctor who said he was fine, but he then suffered further damage. The club lost out on his transfer value, so they brought a claim.
Held: the claim failed because the relevant existed between the Dr and player, not the club. ().

Customs v Excise and Barclays Bank
Suggested there was no need for a Caparo just needed to be applied. This is an example of the courts trying to make the law more simplified.
Held: D had not assumed responsibility - they had no in C, so no duty was owed.

HA
Held: the local authority had statutory obligations, and if they are able to carry out their primary purpose, no duty was owed to C.

Henderson v Merrett Syndicates
Hedley Byrne relationships can extend in application to services.

C = employee of D, and had asked for a job reference. D provided a careless reference, so C didn't get the job.
This gave rise to a Hedley Byrne relationship, so D was liable.

D solicitors drew up a will for C's father. Will excluded C as beneficiaries because of a disagreement, but he later asked the will to be changed. The solicitors never changed it so C wanted to sue the for the money lost.
Held: there was a , despite the fact that there was no direct reliance.

C was carelessly advised to take out a pension that could not the family. The wife sued in negligence. Held: Hedley Byrne relationship established.