Untitled Quiz

Duty of Care

• Duty of care is the obligation owed by one party (defendant) to another (claimant) to take care to avoid causing injury or loss.
• Reasonable foresight: The defendant's failure to take care could cause damage to the claimant.
• Relationship of proximity: A connection between the claimant and the defendant.
• Fair, just, and reasonable: Recognition of the defendant's duty to prevent harm.
• When a duty of care is owed? (incremental/analogous)
  • Road users,
  • Employer-employee,
  • Doctor-patient,
  • Manufacturer-consumer,
  • Occupier-visitor,
  • Lecturer-student,
  • Dentist-patient
• How courts decide when a duty of care exists?
  • Caparo three-stage test:
    • Reasonable Foresight
    • Relationship of Proximity
    • Fair, just, reasonable
• Existing precedent?
  • If yes, follow the precedent.
  • If no, move to the next step
• Analogous precedent?
  • If yes, precedent can be extended to establish/deny duty of care.
  • If no, move to the next step
• Reasonable foreseeability of harm?
  • If no, no duty of care is owed.
  • If yes, proceed to the next step
• Relationship of Proximity?
  • If no, no duty of care is owed.
  • If yes, proceed to the next step
• Fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care?
  • If yes, duty of care is owed.
  • If no, no duty of care is owed.

Special Duty of Care

• Primary victims: People injured in the accident (more privileged).
• Secondary victims: Witnesses to the accident.
• Omissions: Obligations for omissions where a clear relationship exists.
• Control: Having control over the situation. (e.g., council permitting a hazardous situation).
• Assumptions of responsibility: A duty for the safety/wellbeing of another. (e.g. person asleep and creates risk of harm).
• Creating/adopting risks: A duty to address dangerous situations created. (e.g., a landowner failing to prevent a fire from spreading which they knew was possible).
• Contract duties: Specific agreements determine expectations and duties of care.
• Specific relationships: Unique situations like parent-child, where a higher duty of care might exist.
• Mental injury: Requirements for a recognized psychiatric condition (depression, PTSD) . General anxiety or stress isn't enough.
• Proximity relationship: Relationships (e.g. parents and children)
• Foreseeability, duty and remoteness of damage: The harm must have been foreseeable, and time and space involved (McLoughlin v O'Brian - direct aftermath).

Breach of Duty

• Reasonable person test: A theoretical benchmark for expected behaviour, neither too cautious nor reckless.
• Bolam test: (for doctors) How other doctors would act in similar situations.
• Standard of care: The level of care expected from another party.
• Breach of standard: Actions that fall below the anticipated standard.
• Factors influencing Breach Analysis:
  • Cost of required care
  • Social utility of the defendant's actions
  • Foreseeable likelihood and magnitude of harm

Causation

• But-for test: The damage would not have occurred "but for" the defendant's negligence.
• Material contribution to Injury: Liability when the defendant is a partial cause (Bonnington)
• Material increase in risk: Liability even when causation is theoretically impossible to prove.
• Novus actus interveniens: Intervening events that break the chain of causation (e.g., claimant's own actions, natural events, third parties). This discharges the defendant from liability.
• Remoteness of damage: The injury must be reasonably foreseeable for liability.

Partial Defenses

• Contributory negligence: Claimant's own negligence in contributing to the injury, the reduction in damages is proportionally relative to their role and fault (Law Reform Contributory Negligence) Act 1945).
• Volenti non fit injuria: (voluntary assumption of risk) Claimant knowingly and willingly accepted the risk
• Illegality: Past illegal conduct may bar a claim, but the link to the accident must be significant.

Key Case Law Examples

• (Many cases) used throughout the notes and are good summaries. (e.g. Donoghue v Stevenson, Barnett v Kensington)

Additional Notes

• Different standards may apply in different contexts (e.g., professional, children, emergency).
• Notes on specific aspects like the "thin skull rule" (a pre-existing vulnerability of the claimant does not absolve the defendant) are not provided here but should be looked for in other sources.