Liability in negligence
Liability in Negligence
Duty of care + Breach + Damage = Negligence
Duty of care
The idea of duty of care in the tort of negligence is to establish a legal relationship between the
claimant and the defendant.
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
- Mrs Donoghue went to a café; she bought a ginger beer and ice cream. The bottle of beer
had dark glass.
- The drink contained a decomposing dead snail.
- She suffered physical and psychological injuries.
- She wanted to claim for her injuries.
- As she had bought the drink from the manufacturer, she was in a contractual relationship
with them.
- She sued them, they owed her a duty of care.
The House of Lords decided that: ‘You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which
you can reasonably foresee would likely injure your neighbour.’
The Neighbour Principle - The person who is owed a duty of care by the defendant. According to
Lord Atkin it is anyone you ought to have in mind who might potentially be injured by your act or
omission.
- This ‘neighbour’ principle was used by judges for a number of years, but it became clear that
it was not sufficient to deal with new situations that came before the courts.
- This meant that courts came up with a new test the next time this issue came up.
- This was done in Caparo v Dickman (1990)
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018)
Claimant – Mrs Robinson, a 76-year-old frail woman
Defendant – West Yorkshire Police (on behalf of the actions of their officers)
- Mrs Robinson suffered injuries when she was knocked over and fallen on by two police
officers who were physically apprehending a suspect drug dealer whilst she was in close
physical proximity.
- Both the trial court and Court of Appeal held that as negligence in line with the existing
authority on this point, Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989).
- Outcome – liable
Legal principle – the Caparo test does not have to be strictly applied in every case, instead the courts
should look to existing statutes and precedents and identify duties through analogy. Where there is
an existing or analogous duty that can be applied, the courts do not need to consider the Caparo
test, as such consideration has already been determined, recognising the duty. Only in novel duty
situations does this need to be considered.
Liability in Negligence
Duty of care + Breach + Damage = Negligence
Duty of care
The idea of duty of care in the tort of negligence is to establish a legal relationship between the
claimant and the defendant.
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
- Mrs Donoghue went to a café; she bought a ginger beer and ice cream. The bottle of beer
had dark glass.
- The drink contained a decomposing dead snail.
- She suffered physical and psychological injuries.
- She wanted to claim for her injuries.
- As she had bought the drink from the manufacturer, she was in a contractual relationship
with them.
- She sued them, they owed her a duty of care.
The House of Lords decided that: ‘You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which
you can reasonably foresee would likely injure your neighbour.’
The Neighbour Principle - The person who is owed a duty of care by the defendant. According to
Lord Atkin it is anyone you ought to have in mind who might potentially be injured by your act or
omission.
- This ‘neighbour’ principle was used by judges for a number of years, but it became clear that
it was not sufficient to deal with new situations that came before the courts.
- This meant that courts came up with a new test the next time this issue came up.
- This was done in Caparo v Dickman (1990)
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018)
Claimant – Mrs Robinson, a 76-year-old frail woman
Defendant – West Yorkshire Police (on behalf of the actions of their officers)
- Mrs Robinson suffered injuries when she was knocked over and fallen on by two police
officers who were physically apprehending a suspect drug dealer whilst she was in close
physical proximity.
- Both the trial court and Court of Appeal held that as negligence in line with the existing
authority on this point, Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989).
- Outcome – liable
Legal principle – the Caparo test does not have to be strictly applied in every case, instead the courts
should look to existing statutes and precedents and identify duties through analogy. Where there is
an existing or analogous duty that can be applied, the courts do not need to consider the Caparo
test, as such consideration has already been determined, recognising the duty. Only in novel duty
situations does this need to be considered.
