Download NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE and more Schemes and Mind Maps Law in PDF only on Docsity! NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE Three scenarios exist, only one needs to be satisfied in exam: 1. Settled law that DOC exists (doctor-patient, occupier-entrant, teacher-student, road users) 2. Settled law that DOC does not exist 3. General and particular duty scenarios General Duty Scenario General Principle: generalised enquiry Was it reasonably foreseeable that CARELESSNESS OF ANY KIND on the part of the defendant may result in DAMAGE OF SOME KIND to the plaintiff or to a class of persons to which the plaintiff belongs? - Chapman v Hearse Precise sequence of events does not need to be foreseeable Does not have to foresee exact consequence, only the same general character to what has occurred o Chapman v Hearse Threshold of possibility - 'likely to occur' or 'not unlikely to occur' o Caterson v Commissioner for Railways Reasonable person must have foreseen a real, rather than far-fetched or fanciful possibility of some harm o Sullivan v Moody Reasonable foreseeability should be determined before an act has occurred. Is it likely to reasonably foresee that someone will be injured if you do this act. Give generic hypothetical example, focus on relationship between parties Salient Features As per Sullivan v Moody, it is insufficient to establish a duty of care where there is no settled law, salient features also need to be considered. Conflict of duties o Would finding DOC in this instance conflict with an already existing duty? o If so, points away from DOC o Sullivan v Moody Indeterminacy o Would finding DOC expose a defendant to a range of liabilities? o If so, points away from DOC o Sullivan v Moody Floodgates o Would finding DOC risk flooding the courts with claims of liability? o If so, points away from DOC o Sullivan v Moody Coherency of laws o Is there a better suited area of law under which the plaintiff's action should be brought? o If so, points away from DOC o Sullivan v Moody; CAL (No 14) v Motor Accidents Insurance Board (bailment law - obligated to return what was given when requested) Vulnerability of plaintiff o Was the plaintiff vulnerable to the harm and unpreventable? o If so, points towards DOC o CAL (No 14) v Motor Accidents Insurance Board) Nature of arrangement o Was the assumption of responsibility a formal agreement? o If so, points towards DOC o CAL (No 14) v Motor Accidents Insurance Board
