Negligence

1. Negligence SCC Law

2. Law of Tort • Law of tort covers civil actions where a claimant has been ‘wronged’ in someway and has suffered some form of damage / injury which the court will compensate them for Tort is an umbrella term for several types of civil wrong: • nuisance • trespass • defamation • negligence

3. Law of Tort • covers situations where people suffer personal injury and / or their property may be damaged. Example: in a car crash, the car may be damaged and passengers may be injured, both types of ‘damage’ would fall under the tort of negligence

4. Terminology Recap

5. Terminology Recap

6. Terminology Recap

7. Terminology Recap

8. Terminology Recap

9. Duty of Care SCC Law

10. Aims & Objectives Aim: • Understand when a Duty of Care will arise • Objectives: 1. Describe what the ‘neighbour principle’ is 2. Describe the three part test for establishing a ‘Duty of Care’ 3. Apply the ‘Duty of Care’ principle to real life scenarios 4. Describe relevant case law

11. Negligence Formula Duty of Care Breach of Duty Causation of damage NEGLIGENCE

12. The ‘Neighbour’ Principle

13. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) • Facts • Mrs Donoghue went to a café with a friend • The friend bought her a drink of ginger beer and ice cream • The bottle of ginger beer had dark glass so the inside contents could not be seen • After drinking some of it, Mrs Donoghue poured the rest out and saw that it contained a dead and decomposing snail • Taken ill because of the impurities in the drink

14. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) • Injuries resulting from defective products were normally claimed in contract law • Donoghue did not have a contract with the seller, as her friend had bought the ginger beer • While her friend did have a contract, she had not suffered any injury • Neither had a contract with Stevenson, the manufacturer. Donoghue was therefore required to claim damages for negligence

15. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) Held:in a narrow sense -the ratio of this case heard ultimately by the HoL developed the principle that a manufacturer has a duty of care to his ultimate customer, whoever that may be. But in a wider sense… The HoL developed the modern tort of negligence when Lord Atkin said, “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour…”

16. Donoghue v Stevenson • ‘Neighbour Principle’ – • “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour…” • Neighbour = “Persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought to have them in my contemplation” • This was later extended to the ‘Caparo three part test’

17. Automatic relationships that bring a DoC • one road-user to another • employer to employee • manufacturer to consumer • doctor to patient • solicitor to client • teacher to student

18. Caparo v Dickman (1990) Duty of Care Foreseeability Sufficiently proximate relationship Fair, Just and Reasonable

19. Foreseeability • The claimant must show that at the time of Defendant’s negligent act it was foreseeable that some damage to that particular claimant would occur • Case: Kent v Griffiths • Case: Topp v London Country Bus (South West) Ltd • Case: Bourhill v Young

20. Foreseeability • This is the factual aspect of a duty of care. The C must show that at the time of D’s negligent act it was foreseeable that some damage to thatparticular C was foreseeable, if it was foreseeable to someone else who is not the C then the action will fail • General example: someone driving at 60mph through a 30mph zone is expected to foresee the possibility of seriously injuring or even killing someone and therefore owes a duty of care to other road users

21. Kent v Griffiths (2000) • Ambulance was called to take a patient suffering from a serious asthma attack to hospital immediately • The ambulance, without reason, failed to arrive within a reasonable time • Patient suffered a heart attack as a result, which could have been avoided • Held: it was reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would suffer harm

22. Topp v London Country Bus (South West) Ltd (1993) • A bus driver left a bus unattended with the keys in the ignition • Bus was stolen and driven dangerously, causing an accident in which the claimant was injured • The damage was held not to be reasonably foreseeable

23. Sufficiently Proximate Relationship • Proximity can be: • Physical presence (Bourhill v Young) • Varies case to case • Must be proximate to what the Defendant has done (or failed to do), not the Defendant themselves

24. Bourhill v Young (1943) • A motorcyclist was going too fast, crashed into a car and was killed • Mrs Bourhill, who was eight months’ pregnant, was about 50 yards away • She heard the accident, but did not see it • Afterwards, she saw blood on the road and suffered shock. Her baby was stillborn as a result. • Held: Cyclist did not owe her a duty of care, as he could not have reasonably foreseen that she would be affected by his negligent driving, and she was not sufficiently proximate enough to the damage

25. Fair, Just and Reasonable • Public policy test- courts reluctant to impose a duty of care on public authorities • Case: Hill v C. C. of West Yorkshire • Case: Osman v Ferguson • HOWEVER - they will impose a duty if they make the situation worse • Case: Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire CC

26. Fair, Just and Reasonable • Why? • Imposing a duty on police could lead to policing being carried out in a defensive way, which • Likely lead to lower standards of policing

27. Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1990) • Serial killer had been murdering women • Claimant’s daughter was the killer’s last victim • By the time of her death, the police already had enough information to arrest the killer, but had failed to do so • Mother claimed that the police owed a duty of care to her daughter

28. Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1990) • Held: Failed on grounds of proximity and that it was not fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the police to unknown victims

29. Osman v Ferguson (1993) • Police officers were aware that there was a real risk of an attack on a schoolboy • The attacker had a fixation about the boy and had been following him and causing concern • Numerous complaints to police had been made • Boy’s father was murdered, and the boy was seriously injured • Held: The relationship wassufficiently proximate (unlike in Hill), and the case succeeded as it was fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care

30. Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire CC • Fire brigade attended a scene of a fire • A fire officer ordered that the sprinkler system in the building be turned off • Led to more serious damage than if the sprinkler system had been left on • Held: It was fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care, as they had made the situation worse

31. Tom, aged three, is a child actor. He was filming a new TV drama series set in a small fishing village. He had an important part in the series and he was due to appear in every episode. Una is Tom’s mum. During a break in filming, Tom was playing close to the edge of the harbour. Una did not notice because she was reading her phone messages. Tom slipped and fell into the harbour. Tom was injured and had to be replaced in the drama series. As a result, Tom lost filming fees of £70 000, and lost a further £30 000 for being unable to appear in related advertisements. Does Una owe Tom a duty of care? Ryan had just collected his car from Ammar’sgarage, where Ammar had been working on the brakes. Ammar told Ryan that the work was complete, but, in fact, Ammar had forgotten to tighten the handbrake cable. Ryan parked his car on a hill, applied the handbrake and got out. The handbrake failed to hold the car which rolled down the hill and crushed Tanya, who was loading shopping into the back of her van. As a result of the collision Tanya suffered injuries leading to some loss of mobility which is now permanent. Does Ammar owe Tanya a duty of care?

32. Caparo 3 part test: • It is foreseeable that someone in her position would suffer loss as a result of the defective brakes • She is proximate in time and space to the accident which is a consequence of the work done • There is no reason to exclude liability as there is no public policy reason for this on the grounds of extending categories of liability or protecting public services

33. Eve was a trainee hairdresser. After work, she met her friend, Fran, who works as a model. Eve explained that she had started to learn to colour hair that week. She showed Fran a range of products that she was learning to use. Fran asked Eve to colour her hair. They went to Fran’s house. Eve did not read the instructions on the products, failed to follow recommended tests and mixed the products incorrectly. Fran’s skin became blistered and clumps of hair fell out. Fran has been advised that, if she succeeded in a claim against Eve, she could be awarded around £20 000 in damages. This could include damages for loss of earnings now and in the future. Does Eve owe Fran a duty of care?

34. REMEMBER!!! At this point the claimant has not proved the defendant is liable. They must also then prove that D has breached their duty of care and has caused the damage.

35. Negligence Formula • Duty of Care • Foreseeability • Proximity • F, J & R Breach of Duty Causation of damage NEGLIGENCE

36. FEEDBACK