Negligence - Duty Of Care Flashcards
Hedley Byrne v Heller
Duty of care owed because of special relationship
Anns v Merton
No longer good authority - two stage test, proximity and considerations which ought to reduce or negate the duty
Caparo v Dickman
Three ingredients, (1) foreseeability, (2) proximity, and (3) is imposition of a duty fair just and reasonable
Dorset v Home Office
Officers omitted to take proper care of borstal boys, were liable.
Mitchell v Glasgow CC
Neighbour threatened man over years, council were aware. They failed to warn him of a meeting they had with the neighbour which was likely to leave him angry, he left meeting and killed M. Held foreseeability of harm cant alone impose a duty of care.
Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police
Woman’s ex partner threatened to kill her, she called 999 but the operator misheard her, didn’t list her as priority. By the time police reached her she’d been killed. No duty of care in negligence as the call was taken and police did attend, albeit too late.
McFarlane v Tayside
Vasectomy failed, doctor failed to conduct checkup, claimed for cost of rearing child. Court refused to impose liability, birth of a healthy child is a good thing.
Cattanach v Melchior (Australia)
Australian court imposed liability for cost of rearing child after failed vasectomy.
Parkinson v St James and Seacroft NHS Trust
Failed vasectomy led to birth of disabled child, damages for extra cost of raising child attributable to disability were awarded.
Rees v Darlington
Blind woman gave birth after failed sterilisation, losses were unrecoverable, even those attributed to the woman’s blindness. She was awarded £15k for loss of autonomy.
Donoghue v Stevenson
Ginger beer case, neighbourhood principle, neighbours are those who are so closely and affected that they ought reasonably to have been in contemplation, and the neighbourhood principle applies only where there is “proximity”.
