Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Duty of Care
Transcript of Duty of Care
What are we going to do today?
Duty of Care:
Rise and Fall
Before all that....
In the beginning.....
No duty outside contract
Winterbottom v White
The wind (or breeze) of change...
Heaven v Pender
Then....Phase II begins with a snail
Donoghue v Stevenson  UKHL 100
‘The rule that you must love your neighbour becomes in law you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question, who is my neighbour?, receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be liable to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.’
What about the minority judgment?
"If one step...why not fifty?"
Hardly a big deal? Just wait....
Once they started to embrace a duty of care...
Hedley Byrne v Heller  AC465
Home Office v Dorset Yacht  AC1004
Anns v Merton LBC  AC728
Height of the expansion
The 2 step test
How is it an expansion?
Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi
The three step test
1. Should the harm suffered by C have been reasonably foreseen by D
2. Is there a sufficiently proximate relationship between C and D
3. Is it fair, just and reasonable
Caparo v Dickman
Murphy v Brentwood DC
Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman
“The law should develop novel
categories [of negligence]
incrementally and by analogy with
established categories, rather than
by a massive extension of a
prima facie duty of care restrained only
by indefinable considerations which ought to negative or to reduce or limit the scope of the duty of the class of person to whom
it is owed.”
Duty of care today...
More like contract?
Bhamra v Dubb
Everett and Harrison v Comojo
On the one hand
It is fair and just that the person who has harmed C by his or her negligence should be liable in tort
On the other hand
There is a need to limit who can recover
Aim of Tort: - justice and fairness
Duty of care applications
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Osman v UK
Gorringe v Calderdale
Mitchell v Glasgow City Council
D v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust
D v S