Negligence and Duty of Care: Categories and New Situations, Study notes of English

Download Negligence and Duty of Care: Categories and New Situations and more Study notes English in PDF only on Docsity! NEGILIGENCE     Duty  Situations:     i.  Established  Categories:       a)  Manufacturer-­‐consumer;  manufacturer  owes  a  duty  of  care  to  the  consumers  of   that  product,  not  just  the  purchaser.  (Donoghue  v  Stevenson)     b)  Users  of  the  highway;   Watt  v  Rama  (1972)-­‐  P  was  a  child  whose  mother  had  been  driving  a  vehicle,  the   other  driver  was  at  fault  for  the  collision,  driver  owed  duty  of  care  to  mother.  Child   born  with  injuries  attributed  from  the  collision.  Court  extended  road  user  rule  and   said  that  mother  owed  a  duty  of  care  to  her  child  while  on  the  road.     c)  Employer-­‐employee  (master-­‐servant);     Provision  of  tools,  condition  of  premises,  standard:  all  reasonable  care  from  all   circumstances,  employer  owes  duty  of  care  to  employee.   Behrens  v  Bertram  Mills  Circus  [1957]-­‐  Travelling  circus,  minor  events  around  big  top,   side  show  included  an  act  performed  by  small  people.  Customer  unsuccessfully  tried   to  purchase  tickets  for  big  top,  sold  out.  Bought  tickets  to  side  show.  Had  children   and  dog.  Dog  was  not  secured  properly,  elephants  had  to  walk  past  sideshow,  one   elephant  broke  away  because  of  the  dog,  small  people  were  tread  on  and  some   suffered  nervous  shock.  Small  people  sued  employers,  found  to  be  in  breach  of  their   duty  of  care  and  liable  in  the  tort  of  negligence.  Should  have  known  the  risk  of   elephants  walking  past,  and  exercised  a  reasonable  standard  of  care.       d)  Occupier-­‐visitor;   s.14  Wrongs  Act  1958  (Vic)     e)  Doctor-­‐patient;       f)  Teacher-­‐pupil;   Barnes  v  Hampshire  CC  [1969]-­‐     P  aged  approx.  5,  released  from  school  early,  no  one  was  there  to  watch  him,  ran   over  the  road  and  injured,  sued  school  successfully,  were  in  breach  of  duty  of  care.     g)  The  ‘rescuer’;  (anybody  who  goes  and  assists  in  a  dangerous  situation)   no  duty  to  act  to  assist  others  generally,  law  does  not  require  you  to  rescue  a   stranger  put  yourself  at  risk,  person  taking  it  upon  themselves,  we  owe  rescuer  a   duty  of  care.     per  Cardozo  J.in  WagnervInternationalRRCo.(1921)     Videan  v  British  Transport  Commission  [1963]   Young  boy  was  in  danger,  at  that  time  even  though  he  was  6,  he  was  a  trespasser,  he   might  have  been  denied  a  duty  of  care,  as  he  was  a  trespasser.           ii.  New  Duty  Situations:       a)  General  trend  of  expansionism;   Asquith  LJ.  in  Candler  v  Crane,  Christmas  Co.  [1955]     b)  Trends  re  Categories  of  Damage;   i.  Physical/personal  injury:  courts  have  been  generous  in  awarding  P   ii.  Property  damage:  courts  have  been  generous  in  awarding  P,  normally   foreseeable,  normally  founded  on  Donoghue  v  Stevenson.     iii.  ‘Pure’  economic  loss:  usually  follows  from  negligent  statement  e.g.   financial  advice,  if  the  advice  is  passed  by  the  client  to  others  or  broadcasted,   liability  becomes  expansive,  indeterminate  liability,  foresight  of  that  duty   alone  does  not  find  a  duty  of  care,  requires  more   iv.  Other  e.g.  ‘lost  opportunity’,  e.g.  patient  had  a  1/100  chance  to  live  had   they  had  the  surgery,  no  duty  of  care.   ‘mere  grief’à  no  duty  e.g.    a  person  misses  an  interview  due  to  a  negligent   conduct.       Harriton  v  Stephens  (2006)  -­‐     P  (child),  mother  felt  she  was  pregnant  and  German  measles,  aware  of  implications   for  foetus  if  she  was  correct.  Told  Dr.  Stevens  to  do  tests,  Dr.  Stevens  told  her  she   was  pregnant  but  did  not  have  the  virus,  the  child  was  born  with  severe  mental  and   physical  damage.  P  sued  Dr.  for  negligence.  New  type  of  damages  claim.  Not  a  claim   for  personal  injury.  Whether  there  was  a  duty  of  care  owed?  Dr.  did  not  CAUSE  P’s   injuries.  Her  claim  was  not  for  physical  injury,  it  was  a  claim  for  her  mere  existence.   She  had  down  syndrome  Mother  would  have  aborted  the  foetus  had  she  known.   Public  policy  says  we  cannot  endorse  this  as  a  claim  for  damages.  How  can  non-­‐ existence  vs.  existence  and  say  1st  is  better  than  the  other.       Damages  in  categories,  if  not  then  under  Donoghue  v  Stevenson  and  foresight   principal.       c)  The  role  of  ‘foresight’  and  ‘proximity;’       d)  ‘Policy’  Factors;     i.  Potential  for  claims-­‐social  effects:  indeterminacy  (not  established,  unclear)   ii.  Government  &  resource  allocation:  court  is  unlikely  to  view  this  as  duty  of  care   in  negligence,  on  part  of  Gov.  e.g.  person  waited  for  ambulance  too  long  and   died,  resource  allocation  is  felt  to  be  not  judicial  but  governmental.     iii.  Insurance:  relates  to  loss  spreading  theory   iv.  Loss  spreading  theory:  relates  to  insurance  companies