Legal Principles of Omissions and Duty of Care

Generally, there's no legal obligation to help someone in danger. You're only expected to avoid causing harm but not obligated to rescue them.

Acts that are part of a series of actions can be considered as misfeasance (causing harm) even if they appear passive. For example, failing to brake at a junction is an act, not an omission.

Starting something doesn't obligate you to finish it. For example, if you dig a hole, you're not legally obligated to fill it back in.

When someone is under your care or control and cannot protect themselves, you owe them a duty to act. Examples include schools, hospitals, and police.

The police were held liable for failing to prevent a suicide of a sane prisoner in their custody. This case established that a duty exists in certain circumstances.

A duty to prevent someone of full mental capacity from harming themselves is rare. They have the right to make their own choices, even if they are risky.

A duty to act can be imposed on someone who benefits from a relationship with the claimant.

A duty to act can be imposed on someone who stands to benefit from a relationship with the claimant, even if they don't currently benefit.

A legal principle that limits the scope of a defendant's (D) liability for psychiatric harm caused by their negligence.

A person directly involved in a negligent act or event, who experiences a reasonable fear for their own safety.

A person who is not directly involved in a negligent act, but witnesses or learns about the event and suffers psychiatric harm as a result.

The leading case that established the legal framework for primary victims' claims for psychiatric harm.

A primary victim's claim for psychiatric harm must be based on a reasonable fear for their own safety, even if they weren't actually in danger.

A primary victim's claim for psychiatric harm will be unsuccessful if their fear was unreasonable, such as a hypersensitive person reacting to a commonplace event.

The leading case that set out the criteria for secondary victims to recover damages for psychiatric harm.

A secondary victim must have a close relationship with the person who was directly harmed, such as a spouse, parent, child, or close friend.

A secondary victim must have been at or near the scene of the event, or have witnessed the immediate aftermath.

A secondary victim must have perceived the event or its immediate aftermath with their own senses, either by sight or sound.

The case that established the "immediate aftermath" criteria for secondary victims.

The court's decision in McFarlane v EE Caledonia Ltd rejected the idea that an unrelated bystander could claim for psychiatric harm even if the event was unusually horrific.

The court ruled that the mere fact that a primary victim might develop an illness in the future is not sufficient to be considered a

A secondary victim cannot recover damages for psychiatric harm caused by hearing about the event from a third party, such as through news reports or social media.

The legal principle that a person can be held responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions.

The legal principle that a person who voluntarily puts themselves in a dangerous situation cannot claim compensation for injuries sustained.

A legal term referring to the negligent act or omission that directly causes the harm.

A legal principle that judges may consider policy factors when making decisions about legal issues.

A legal term for a person who comes to the aid of someone in distress.

A legal principle that a rescuer who is injured while attempting a rescue can claim compensation for their injuries.

A legal principle that a rescuer must have been in a real or perceived danger to claim compensation for psychiatric harm.

A condition that involves persistent and often distressing symptoms associated with a traumatic experience.

A legal principle that someone who is responsible for creating a dangerous situation is obligated to assist those who are in danger as a result.

A legal principle that limits the scope of liability for psychiatric harm to those who are closely related to the victim and who are present at the scene of the accident.

A legal principle that a defendant will be liable for any psychiatric injury that is proximately caused by their negligence, and that the victim could reasonably be expected to suffer.

A legal principle that a plaintiff may be able to recover compensation for psychiatric injury even if they were not in physical danger themselves, but were subjectively at risk of physical harm.

A legal principle that a defendant can be held liable for psychiatric injury even if the victim is not recognized as a primary or secondary victim, but is considered a 'person in the sphere of the secondary victim'.

A legal concept where a person or organization has a responsibility to take reasonable care to avoid causing harm to others.

The test used to determine whether a duty of care exists. It considers whether there is a sufficiently close relationship between the parties and whether it was foreseeable that harm could be caused by one party's actions.

A type of loss that only affects someone's financial position and doesn't involve physical injury or damage to property. For example, the loss of profit due to a defective product.

The principle stating that a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the consumers of their products because they create a relationship with them when they sell their products.

The case that established the legal principle that a food manufacturer owes a duty of care to consumers to avoid causing harm through negligence.

The case which overruled Anns, clarifying that pure economic loss from defective property is not recoverable.

The idea that a defendant is responsible for all the consequences of their negligence, even if those consequences were more severe than could be reasonably foreseen. This applies specifically to primary victims.

The legal principle that a defendant's actions must be a direct and proximate cause of the claimant's injury for them to be held liable for negligence.

The legal principle that determines whether the type of harm suffered by the claimant was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligence. It is essential for establishing liability.

A legal doctrine that prevents frivolous or excessive claims by limiting the types of damages a claimant can recover for negligence.

A legal duty owed by one person to another to take reasonable care to avoid causing them harm.

The legal principle that a defendant's liability for psychiatric injury to a secondary victim is limited to those injuries that were reasonably foreseeable to a person of ordinary fortitude.

The principle that a person who creates a dangerous situation, even without wrongdoing, has a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm to others.

A recognised psychiatric illness, such as PTSD, anxiety disorder, or depression, that is caused by a traumatic event.

A recognised psychiatric injury, like PTSD or anxiety disorder, is required for a successful claim of psychiatric harm in negligence.

A legal test used to determine if a duty of care exists for psychiatric harm in secondary victims. It involves four key elements: close tie of love and affection, proximity in time and space, means of perception, and sudden appreciation of the horrifying event.

The concept that a person can be a primary victim if they are within the 'zone of danger' even if the harm was not intended for them.

The requirement that a secondary victim must have witnessed the event or its immediate aftermath to claim psychiatric injury.

The requirement that a secondary victim must have perceived the event through their own senses, such as sight or hearing, to claim psychiatric injury.

A duty of care can arise for a person who has control over both the claimant and the immediate wrongdoer. This is likely when a fellow inmate assaults a prisoner.

The requirement that a secondary victim must have experienced a sudden and shocking event to claim psychiatric injury.

An occupier has a responsibility to take steps to remove hazards from their land that threaten neighbouring property (even if the hazard is a natural occurrence or caused by a third party).

The legal principle that a defendant must take a plaintiff as they find them, including any pre-existing vulnerabilities or sensitivities.

The parent company can be liable if it intervenes in the management of its subsidiary, which causes harm to others.

A duty of care may arise for the police when they have a duty of supervision over individuals.

A legal case that established the 'immediate aftermath' requirement for secondary victims, meaning they must have witnessed the event or its immediate consequences to claim psychiatric injury.

A duty of care can be imposed even for intentional wrongdoing by the immediate wrongdoer, if the defendant had a relationship with both the claimant and the wrongdoer.

It is particularly likely that a duty of care will be imposed on a defendant who has control over both the claimant and the immediate wrongdoer (like an employer or a prison warden).

The requirement for a secondary victim to perceive the event through personal observation, not through media reports or secondhand accounts.

Courts are more likely to find a duty of care for primary victims than for secondary victims. This is because primary victims are directly involved in the event causing harm or within the 'zone of danger'.

A legal case that illustrated the 'continuation of an interrupted sequence of events' principle, where the immediate aftermath can extend beyond the initial event.

Courts are more likely to find a duty of care for a rescuer who is directly involved in an event causing harm, even if they were not initially in the 'zone of danger' when the event occurred.

A legal case that explored the issue of whether a duty of care is owed to relatives of patients who suffer harm due to medical negligence.

The test used to determine if a duty of care exists in novel situations, considering if it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose such a duty.

Established categories of relationships or situations where a duty of care is automatically presumed to exist, without needing to apply the Caparo test.

Situations in which a court needs to determine if a duty of care exists in a new situation not previously considered.

The principle that a legal duty to act generally does not arise from inaction, but from positive conduct causing harm.

The legal principle that when a new situation arises, the court will consider the closest existing cases to promote consistency and fairness.

Legal considerations that can influence the court's decision on whether to impose a duty of care, taking into account social or economic factors.

The legal principle that public authorities are typically not liable for omissions, but their actions can create a duty of care, similar to other individuals or organizations.

The legal principle that a duty of care is owed by healthcare providers, including both medical professionals and administrative staff, to provide accurate information that may affect a patient's health.

The legal principle that a duty of care exists between a healthcare provider and a patient from the moment the patient is admitted into the facility.

The legal principle that individuals who provide and operate emergency medical services have a duty of care to take reasonable steps not to cause physical harm to patients.

A factual situation where a person's actions cause harm to another, leading to potential legal liability.

A legal situation where an individual or entity takes on a responsibility to care for another, even though there was no initial obligation to do so.

A legal principle that requires individuals to act with the level of care and competence expected of a reasonable person performing a similar task.

Occurs when someone is placed in a position where they believe they are causing harm to another due to the negligence of a third party.

The incremental approach to duty of care focuses on applying existing legal principles from similar cases to new scenarios, rather than relying on a single general test.

Refers to the injury or damage suffered as a result of a breach of duty of care and causation.

This refers to the situation where a plaintiff, who would normally be considered a secondary victim, is injured by the defendant's negligent act because they were trying to rescue someone else.

This refers to the situation where a plaintiff suffers psychological harm due to witnessing the defendant's negligent action causing injury to another person.

A set of criteria established in the Alcock case that determines whether a secondary victim can claim damages for psychiatric harm.

The principle that a person generally cannot be held liable for causing emotional distress to others through their own self-inflicted harm.

The case of Dooley v Cammell Laird & Co Ltd established that if someone is made to feel they caused harm due to their employer's negligence, they may not be subject to Alcock restrictions.

This case reinforces the incremental approach to determining duty of care, suggesting that Caparo test should be implemented for specific cases.

This case established that public authorities, like the police, do not receive special immunity from negligence liability.

This case emphasizes that public authorities can be liable for negligence, even when fulfilling their duties, if they fail to take reasonable care.

This principle means a court should not interfere with reasonable decisions made by local authorities, even if not perfect, when caring for children.

The court must be certain that the wrongdoing went beyond a simple mistake and was so bad it can be considered negligent.

When a claim is about financial loss that wasn't directly caused by physical harm, a court will decide whether it's fair to hold the defendant responsible, based on fairness.

The physical pain and suffering, extra medical costs, and lost wages caused by pregnancy and childbirth are considered harm.

A health authority is usually not responsible for the costs of raising a healthy child, even if there was a medical error leading to pregnancy.

A court might decide that the burden of a financial loss should be shared or placed differently, based on fairness and justice.

A court might decide that the wrongdoer should be held responsible for the damages they directly caused, based on their actions.

Parents cannot sue for the expenses of raising a healthy child, even if the child's birth was due to a medical error.

Parents can claim compensation for the additional costs linked to raising a child with disabilities caused by a doctor's negligence.

A doctor's negligence can be seen as assuming a responsibility for the patient's reproductive choices, including preventing a disability.

The court might consider a more just outcome overall, even if it means not using traditional legal approaches.

While parents might not be compensated for raising a healthy child, they may receive a symbolic amount to recognize the difficulties they face.

The court can award damages for the extra costs related to the disabled parent's needs in raising a child, even if not for raising the child itself.