The neighbour test
This was brought about by Lord Atkins in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932).
Lord Atkins stated that there must be some general conception of relations giving rise to a duty of care. The rule was that a person must love his neighbour which became in law that you must not injure you neighbour. The question was that “who then in law is my neighbour?
The answer was that anyone who is closely and directly affected by your act, to reasonably have them in contemplation as being affected when you are directed to a act.
Duty of care
This was brought to existence by Lord Bridge in Caparon Industries v Dickman (1990) in this case:
The test in this case was that it must be clarified whether the loss was foreseeable i.e. if it could have been prevented as in case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) in the neighbour principle. If the loss was foreseeable, whether there was a sufficient relationship of proximity between the parties should be taken into consideration. If the was, whether it was fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
In this case the loss was foreseeable and could be argued that there was sufficient proximity between both parties but the claimants failed on the third part of the test which was whether it was fair, just and reasonable to impose liability
Therefore to owe a duty of care, there must be:
(a) Foreseeability of the damage;
(b) Sufficient proximity between both parties;
(c) Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.
The reasonable man test
A reasonable man is described as “the man on the Clapham omnibus” “the man on the street” i.e. an ordinary person.
The factor the court would take into consideration.
In determining the standards of care include:
- Special characteristics of the defendant.
- Special characteristics of the claimant.
-
Foreseeability of risk which states that there is no obligation on the defendant for risk other than those within reasonable contemplation. It is unfair to impose liability where risk was unforeseeable as in the case of Roe v minister of health (1954.
-
Magnitude or degree of risk which states that the care expected depends on the likelihood of the risk as in the case of Bolton v stone (1951).
- Experts of professional.
- Practicality or prevention (of the risk).
Causation
In English law, causation is linked to be established between the breach and the resulting damage i.e. on link no liability. In often time, there is no problem when a link is shown because it is fairly obvious that the injury sustained was caused by the negligence.
