• 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...

Introduction

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.

Middle

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.

Conclusion

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)

    There is also the Sex discrimination act 1975 it covers discrimination on the grounds of sex in the areas of employment, education, housing and the provision of services. While this act didn't come into force until 1975 more recently it has been extended to cover transsexuals by the Gender Recognition

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    be carefully examined in each case before it can be determined whether a duty of care exists and if so what is the scope of that duty. It was established in the case of Donahue v Stevenson. Liability for negligent conduct had previously been recognised only in certain carefully defined circumstances.

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Questions related to the tort of negligence.

    3 star(s)

    that they could be harmed by, that a reasonably humane person would have kept away safely e.g. a tiger in the living-room is not something that a reasonably humane person would keep to attack burglars. Freddy would need to fulfill all the above qualifications for the test of vicarious liability to prove that Darratts Homes Ltd.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Homicide Act 1957

    3 star(s)

    Woolin bought about a 2-part test to be considered in murder cases, which is to ask whether death or serious harm was a virtual certainty of D's actions and whether D appreciated that such was the case. Provocation is defined in S.3 of the Homicide Act 1957; a defendant must show that he or she was provoked (R v.

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

    Although there is evidence to suggest that fault is in fact an essential element in liability, there is some evidence to weaken this theory. Firstly, it is possible that in practice, liability can hinge on chance as well as fault.

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

    the defendant committed the actus reus, thereby making the particular offence "absolute". In the case of R v Larsonneur (1933), the defendant who went to Eire who previously was forced to leave England was deported back to England against her will, she was found guilty of being of "being an

  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 ...

    Doctors, for example, have a higher standard of care toward others than the reasonable person.) 2. Somebody does something that a reasonably careful person would not do under the circumstances. In everyday life, negligence can arise in many situations, including: on the road, medical and health care, at work, at one?s property, faulty products, etc.

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