Negligence: The Duty of Care

Question 1

The tort of negligence existed before, but what was the landmark case in negligence that established a certain principle?

Answer 1

• Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

Question 2

In Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), what did the House of Lords decide? What principle was established?

Answer 2

• a legal duty of care could be owed by a manufacturer to a consumer even though no contractual duty existed
• The ‘neighbour principle’

Question 3

What is the neighbour principle?

Answer 3

• One must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which one can reasonably foresee as being likely to injure one’s neighbour

Question 4

What happened in Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd (1963)?

Answer 4

• Claimants wanted reassurance that they could provide credit to another company. The financial stability was reassured by the defendants
• Soon after giving credit, the other company defaulted and the claimants were left liable for its debts

Question 5

What did the court lay down in Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners (1963)?

Answer 5

• four principles which establish a duty of care

Question 6

What are the four principles laid out in Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners (1963) that establish a duty of care?

Answer 6

• Financial relationship of trust exists
• The party preparing the information assumes the risk and takes responsibility for any adverse consequences if the information they are preparing is wrong
• That there has been reliance on said information by the claimant
• That this reliance was reasonable in the circumstances

Question 7

What happened in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd (1970? What was held?

Answer 7

• Young offenders were doing supervised work on Brown Sea Island under the Borstal Regime
• One night the officers retired for the evening, leaving the boys unsupervised
• Seven of them escaped and stole a boat which collided with the claimant’s yacht
• HELD - the Home Office owed a duty of care for their omission as they were in a position of control over the 3rd party who caused the damage and it was foreseeable that harm would result from their inaction

Question 8

The Court of Appeal and House of Lords have said in the past that a duty of care should be limited for what four reasons?

Answer 8

• Floodgates argument
• Impact on the insurance industry
• Impact on social activity
• Public policy

Question 9

Expand on the floodgates argument for limiting the duty of care (3)

Answer 9

• Too many claims clogging up the court
• Means that cases could be weighted too much in favour of the claimants if all they had to do was just say that the defendant owed them a duty of care
• Courts’ way of trying to achieve natural justice

Question 10

Expand on the impact on the insurance industry argument for limiting the duty of care (2)

Answer 10

• Could potentially have to pay out for more claims
• They would also have to offer insurance on a much wider range of relationships that the court has decided carry with them a duty of care

Question 11

Expand on the impact on social activity argument for limiting the duty of care (2)

Answer 11

• More claims arising from an activity would mean a society that is scared of being sued - making everyone litigation shy and risk averse
• Activities like DofE might not take place because of the litigation risk

Question 12

Expand on the public policy argument for limiting the duty of care

Answer 12

• Judges decide to interpret a term of a law in a certain way, so as to protect public morality and safety

Question 13

What happened in Anns v Meron London Borough (1978)?

Answer 13

• Anns’ house was breaking under poor foundations
• The council had a lease on the building
• HELD - the local council owed a duty to inspect the building so recovery was allowed as there was material damage, despite there being no contractual relationship

Question 14

In Anns v Merton London Borough (1978), what did the House of Lords pave the way for?

Answer 14

• for the court to find that a duty of care exists in a way that meant they were not constrained by precedent

Question 15

What do the courts need to do to find a duty of care, as set out in Anns v Merton London Borough (1978)? (2)

Answer 15

• Assess whether it would be reasonable on the facts of the case to find that a relationship of sufficient proximity exists
• Once it has been decided that one exists, the courts need to look into whether it should be restricted in some way

Question 16

What happened in Junior Books v Veitchi (1983)?

Answer 16

• Defendants laid a floor in a factory for the claimants
• Claimants claimed that due to negligence the floor was faulty and brought an action for the costs of relaying the floor, loss of profits and the cost to the factory for getting the floor replaced
• HELD - the parties were sufficiently close and therefore there was a duty
• On this basis the claimants could recover the costs of repairing the floor