• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Duty of Care

Extracts from this document...


Duty of care In tort law, a duty of care is legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foresee-ably harm others. The courts had decided that a duty should be owed, E.G road accidents, bailments or dangerous goods. The neighbor test has been made to expound such a general test, the neighbor principle means that you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee, would be likely to injure your neighbor. With the term 'neighbor' its meant people who are so closely and directly affected by your act, E.g drivers and road users, doctors and patients. ...read more.


foreseeability of the damage; (b) a sufficiently 'proximate' relationship between the parties and (c) it must be fair, just and reasonable. The claimant has to show these three elements in order there to have a duty of care. Foreseeability means whether a hypothetical 'reasonable person' would have foreseen damage in the circumstances. There is no duty of care if the damages are not reasonably foreseeable, the case of Kent v Griffiths is where the claimant was an asthmatic person, she suffered from an asthma attack, there was called for an ambulance but it arrived 40 minutes late. In this case foresight was established but in the case of Bourhill v Young where a pregnant woman suffered psychiatric harm after walking onto the scene of a motorcycle accident, she ...read more.


There are a number of relationships that give rise to an affirmative duty to prevent harm. These include employer and employee, parent and child, driver and passenger, referee and player in a football match. Its fair, just and reasonable to impose liability even if the harm was foreseeable, the parties were close, the courts decided there wouldn't be a duty of care, because fair, just and reasonable will depend on the proximity of the relationship between that parties and other relevant factors e.g. public policy. However in Capital & countries Plc v Hampshire County Council, this case is an example, where the fire brigade attended a fire and a fire brigade ordered that the sprinkler system should be off, so this led to a more serious fire damage. This was fair, just and reasonable to recognize a duty of care if the damage is not reasonably foreseeable. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

3 star(s)

A generally accurate answer which does include some examples and case examples. However there are a number of improvements that could be made to make the answer more accurate.
Rating ***

Marked by teacher Nick Price 18/03/2012

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Discuss the extent to which discrimination is prohibited under English and Welsh law (25 ...

    5 star(s)

    The Race Relations Act 1976 and as amended by the Race Relations Act 2000, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. There is also the Employment Equality (Sexual orientation) Regs 2003 and the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regs 2003, the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the Civil Partnership Act 2005 which allows

  2. Marked by a teacher

    "The Nedrick/Woolin direction on intention manages to produce a clear distinction between intention and ...

    4 star(s)

    a member of the bomb disposal team as a virtual certainty' and therefore would not be classified as a murderer. The terrorist would be convicted of manslaughter under the Nedrick/Woollin direction, which although may result in the terrorist being sentenced to life, still does not seem acceptable.

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Questions related to the tort of negligence.

    3 star(s)

    Occupier's liability is defined by the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. It is the common duty of care owed by an occupier to a lawful visitor to make sure that they are reasonably safe during their stay, and the duty owed to trespassers to make sure that there is not any outstanding danger(s)

  2. Consider the meaning and importance of fault-based liability in English law

    Also, in R v Mitchell, the defendant pushed a man in a queue, who in turn fell against another, who in turn fell against an elderly lady who had to have an operation from which she died. The Court of Appeal ruled that transferred malice applied to unlawful act manslaughter.


    However, there is still difficulty in defining what amounts to a medically recognised psychiatric injury. While it is clear that conditions such as post traunmatic stress disorder are recoverable, the law is less clear on conditions that may be argued to be no more than profound grief.

  2. Examine the arguments for and against strict liability illustrating your answer with example of ...

    alien to whom leave to land in the Uk has been refused", according to the Aliens Act 1920 an offence regarded by statute to be one of strict liability the mens rea was not needed. Common law offences of strict liability are very minimal as courts have mainly disapproved of

  1. Contributory negligence and volenti non fit injuria are very similar in nature and effect. ...

    Rescuers are also protected by the plea of volenti being used against them. They will not be said to be given consent merely because they have been conscious and deliberately acted to give help to the people in harm.

  2. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    even if the person found strictly liable was not at fault or negligent. Strict liability has been applied to certain activities in tort, such as holding an employer absolutely liable for the torts of her employees, but today it is most commonly associated with defectively manufactured products.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work