DOC – Does the D owes DOC to the C? Foreseeability means the ability to foresee harm to the • Practical consideration - who may be in the best
claimant as a result of one’s actions or inactions. position to prevent future liability
Std DOC Foreseeability is determined objectively. Foreseeability of • The fear of opening the floodgates of litigation often
harm in general is insufficient, harm to the claimant or a looms large over many decisions of the court
Lochgelly Iron & Coal Co. v Mc Mullan class of persons to which the claimant belongs must have Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2017] CA
To est neg the C must prove duty, breach, causation and been foreseeable. in this case the courts was asked to consider whether a
remote. Policy plays an important role in determining Palsgraf v Long Island Railway patient, who was wrongly informed by a civilian receptionist
whether a loss should lie with the C or D. where it was held that it was not foreseeable that the at the A & E of estimated waiting time, had a cause of
negligent act of pushing a passenger would injure someone action. Should a civilian, non-medically trained receptionist,
Incremental Approach standing several feet away. owe a duty of care an be accountable for the inaccurate
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police information she provided? The Court of Appeal held that it
Court will consider what has been decided previously and Haley v London Electricity Board was not fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on
follow the precedents. But there is no need for the claimant himself to be the receptionist. The court decided that there was no
specifically foreseeable general duty upon receptionists to keep patients informed
If no decided precedent, court will consider the closest about likely waiting times. Their function was to record new
analogies in the existing law and weigh up the reasons for Proximity means closeness in relationship between the D arrivals, tell them where to wait and pass on relevant details
and against imposing liability. (Incremental approach) and the C. Closeness in relationship does not however mean to the triage nurse. It was not their function to give any
that the parties must know each other or be related to one wider advice to patients and it was not fair, just or
Court will resort to Caparo only where it is invited to depart another but rather they must share a relationship in which reasonable to extend their responsibility in this
from previous authority. (novel situation) one is able to foresee harm to another by his actions or way. Litigation about what was said in A&E departments
inactions. e.g. Relationship between a manufacturer and a could proliferate and healthcare providers might react by
Foreseeability + Proximity + Just, Fair and Reasonable = consumer telling receptionists to do nothing other than ask patients
DOC Donoghue v Stevenson for details. That would be undesirable.
Caparo Industries v Dickman A manufacturer shares legal proximity with his consumer
House of Lords adopts the ‘three-stage test’ or the ‘singular because he is able to foresee that any negligence on his part Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC
composite test’ for duty of care. Lord Bridge provided an with regards to the manufacturing of the product would - the Supreme Court allowing an appeal on the Court of
approach to determine duty of care:– ultimately affect his consumer. This proximity exists despite Appeal decision held that it was inappropriate to separate
◼ First, determine whether the case falls within an the fact that the manufacture and the consumer may be in medical from reception staff because, whilst it is not the
existing category (traditional category) where a different parts of the world and despite them having never function of reception staff to give wider advice or
duty exist met. information in general to patients, it is the duty of the NHS
◼ If yes then, then following precedent a duty would Trust to take care not to provide misinformation to patients
exit on the facts before the judge Just fair and reasonable which embodies the and that duty is not avoided by the misinformation having
◼ If no then, the case is a novel one in which case the considerations of policy. The requirement not only anchors been provided by reception staff as opposed to medical
three-stage test/singular composite test can be the notion that ultimately justice must prevail but also seeks staff. The Court held that the standard to be applied is that
employed to set sensible limits on the parameters of liability. A of an averagely competent and well-informed person
◼ However, cautioned Lord Bridge, the test is merely number of policy factors influence the decision of the performing the function of an A & E department
a convenient label courts: receptionist and therefore, it is not unreasonable to require
◼ Whether a duty of care exist will ultimately depend • Loss allocation - ultimately liability is likely to tilt receptionists to take reasonable care not to provide
on all the circumstances of the case towards the party who is in a better position to bear misleading information as to the likely availability of
its cost. medical assistance as responding to requests for
information as to the usual system of operation of the A & E
claimant as a result of one’s actions or inactions. position to prevent future liability
Std DOC Foreseeability is determined objectively. Foreseeability of • The fear of opening the floodgates of litigation often
harm in general is insufficient, harm to the claimant or a looms large over many decisions of the court
Lochgelly Iron & Coal Co. v Mc Mullan class of persons to which the claimant belongs must have Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2017] CA
To est neg the C must prove duty, breach, causation and been foreseeable. in this case the courts was asked to consider whether a
remote. Policy plays an important role in determining Palsgraf v Long Island Railway patient, who was wrongly informed by a civilian receptionist
whether a loss should lie with the C or D. where it was held that it was not foreseeable that the at the A & E of estimated waiting time, had a cause of
negligent act of pushing a passenger would injure someone action. Should a civilian, non-medically trained receptionist,
Incremental Approach standing several feet away. owe a duty of care an be accountable for the inaccurate
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police information she provided? The Court of Appeal held that it
Court will consider what has been decided previously and Haley v London Electricity Board was not fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on
follow the precedents. But there is no need for the claimant himself to be the receptionist. The court decided that there was no
specifically foreseeable general duty upon receptionists to keep patients informed
If no decided precedent, court will consider the closest about likely waiting times. Their function was to record new
analogies in the existing law and weigh up the reasons for Proximity means closeness in relationship between the D arrivals, tell them where to wait and pass on relevant details
and against imposing liability. (Incremental approach) and the C. Closeness in relationship does not however mean to the triage nurse. It was not their function to give any
that the parties must know each other or be related to one wider advice to patients and it was not fair, just or
Court will resort to Caparo only where it is invited to depart another but rather they must share a relationship in which reasonable to extend their responsibility in this
from previous authority. (novel situation) one is able to foresee harm to another by his actions or way. Litigation about what was said in A&E departments
inactions. e.g. Relationship between a manufacturer and a could proliferate and healthcare providers might react by
Foreseeability + Proximity + Just, Fair and Reasonable = consumer telling receptionists to do nothing other than ask patients
DOC Donoghue v Stevenson for details. That would be undesirable.
Caparo Industries v Dickman A manufacturer shares legal proximity with his consumer
House of Lords adopts the ‘three-stage test’ or the ‘singular because he is able to foresee that any negligence on his part Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC
composite test’ for duty of care. Lord Bridge provided an with regards to the manufacturing of the product would - the Supreme Court allowing an appeal on the Court of
approach to determine duty of care:– ultimately affect his consumer. This proximity exists despite Appeal decision held that it was inappropriate to separate
◼ First, determine whether the case falls within an the fact that the manufacture and the consumer may be in medical from reception staff because, whilst it is not the
existing category (traditional category) where a different parts of the world and despite them having never function of reception staff to give wider advice or
duty exist met. information in general to patients, it is the duty of the NHS
◼ If yes then, then following precedent a duty would Trust to take care not to provide misinformation to patients
exit on the facts before the judge Just fair and reasonable which embodies the and that duty is not avoided by the misinformation having
◼ If no then, the case is a novel one in which case the considerations of policy. The requirement not only anchors been provided by reception staff as opposed to medical
three-stage test/singular composite test can be the notion that ultimately justice must prevail but also seeks staff. The Court held that the standard to be applied is that
employed to set sensible limits on the parameters of liability. A of an averagely competent and well-informed person
◼ However, cautioned Lord Bridge, the test is merely number of policy factors influence the decision of the performing the function of an A & E department
a convenient label courts: receptionist and therefore, it is not unreasonable to require
◼ Whether a duty of care exist will ultimately depend • Loss allocation - ultimately liability is likely to tilt receptionists to take reasonable care not to provide
on all the circumstances of the case towards the party who is in a better position to bear misleading information as to the likely availability of
its cost. medical assistance as responding to requests for
information as to the usual system of operation of the A & E
