Duty of Care
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. The neighbour principle was established in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, this case was about a snail in the ginger beer bottle, its where two friends went out for a drink, friend of Mrs Donoghue ordered for a drink, as Mrs Donoghue started to drink from the ginger beer bottle a contaminated snail fell out of it, therefore Mrs donoghue suffered several injuries, Mrs Donoghue had no direct or indirect claim against the manufacturer based on contractual obligations because she did not purchase the product but yet she sued the manufacturer. Now the requirements are it that must be satisfied before a duty of care is held to exist were laid down in Caparo Industries v Dickman. There are three elements, these are; (a)
'The existence of a duty of care is ultimately a question of policy'. Discuss.
'The existence of a duty of care is ultimately a question of policy'. Discuss. In previous years, the concept of duty of care has been applied by various courts to act as a control device in order to determine and limit the categories of who can bring claims in negligence and in what circumstances. Worryingly, judges have shown the ability to strike out cases by deciding that a case is non-actionable and this ability has mostly been exercised in cases concerning public policy. It is here where it is seen that a duty of care will only exist if it does not run contrary to the ideas of public policy. Policy has played an important part in limiting the scope of the duty of care. So is the existence of a duty of care, ultimately a question of policy? To a certain extent, it can be seen that the existence of a duty of care, is ultimately a question of policy. Until very recently courts have has discretion as to whether or not to attach a duty of care to a particular public body and it is these decisions which have been influenced by policy arguments and decisions. This approach has been adopted particularly where there is an overriding public or general interest which awards defendants a certain degree of immunity from litigation. Courts have often justified their actions of not imposing a duty of care upon public bodies using arguments that reflect their concerns should a
Questions related to the tort of negligence.
(A) This question is related to the tort of negligence. There are three elements that must be present for an act or omission to be negligent; (1) The defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff; (2) The defendant breached the duty of care by an act or omission; (3) The plaintiff must suffer damage as a result - be it physical, emotional or financial. The court might decide that Freddy (the plaintiff) was owed a duty of care by Elvis (the defendant) if they find that what happened to Freddy was in the realm of reasonable forseeability - any harm that could be caused to a 'neighbour' by Elvis' actions that he could reasonably have expected to happen. The 'neighbour principle' was established in the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932). Donoghue was bought a ginger beer by her friend from an ice-cream parlour. She discovered a partially decomposed snail inside the opaque bottle. She claimed that she suffered from gastro-enteritis and nervous shock as a result, and sued the manufacturer. She could not sue for breach of contract (the contract being that the manufacturer would provide the consumer with products that would not harm her) because her friend had purchased it for her, so she sued for negligence. Lord Atkinson, who was the judge at the trial, said the case hinged on the question, do the manufacturers owe the consumer, as well as the buyer (the parlour), a duty
Case Note - Stone & Dobinson 1977. The details contained in this case are very emotive and raise some important issues surrounding the issue of care and the duty owed to a person who is unable to care for themselves
Shaun Rogers – LW508 Criminal Law – D.Dinsmore R v John Edward Stone R v Gwendoline Dobinson [1977] 2 All ER 341 Court of Appeal Case Note The Facts Stone, a 67-year-old man partially deaf and almost blind lived with his younger partner Dobinson. Also living with Stone and Dobinson was Stones adult son Cyril. All had capacity issues. Stones anorexic sister Fanny came to live with her brother and his mistress as a lodger. Fanny suffered from anorexia nervosa. When living with her brother and his partner, Fanny’s condition worsened. Attempts were made to help Fanny but these were ineffective. Fanny died. Judgement Lord Justice Geoffrey Lane made it clear that there was no dispute as to the matters upon which the jury had to be satisfied before they could convict of manslaughter.[1] These were, . That the defendants took on the care of a person who was unable to care for themselves, whether this be due to the age or infirmity of the person being cared for. . With regards to the defendant’s duty of care, they were grossly negligent. . That by reason of such negligence the person died. It was suggested by Mr. Coles for the appellants that Fanny cast a duty on her brother and Mrs. Dobinson because of the fact she became infirm and helpless. He said the appellants were entitled to do nothing leading into what he believed to be an analogous example, which was
Duty and desire in Jane Eyre
How is the conflict between duty and desire explored in these texts? Desire is a term conveying a longing for a certain object, person or outcome. It is an emotion from the heart and is unaffected by social opinion. Duty, in contrast, is a moral obligation to an act, which is perceived to be selfless. The decisions made regarding these emotions are significant throughout 'Jane Eyre' and 'Wide Sargasso Sea'. However, these definitions were more extreme during the time that Brontë and Rhy's texts were written. In the 19th century, it was considered a completely selfish act for women to show desire, it was a vulgar emotion that women were expected to control and conceal. The female role during the 1800's was limited; they were expected to be passive and were passed from father to husband, similar to a possession. To perform one's duty to society was regarded as an unspoken rule imposed on all women, therefore, women never truly had the chance to express their true identity or gain real independence. The 19th century conflict between duty and desire was a key topic written about by many authors, predominately women, who illustrated personal experiences and beliefs through the characters and their decisions. In both Bronte's and Rhy's novels the authors illustrate the limitations imposed on women, society's views and expectations concerning the conflict, and the importance of
Criminal Law Omissions. In the English legal system there is generally no liability for an omission to act, the English legal system does not have a good Samaritan rule neither is there no duty of easy rescue.
In the English legal system there is generally no liability for an omission to act, the English legal system does not have a 'good Samaritan rule' neither is there 'no duty of easy rescue'. Fitzjames Stephen gave a classical example of 'A seeing B drowning and is able to save him by holding out his hand. A abstains from doing so in order that B may be drowned, A will have committed no offence.'1 This example clearly shows that there is no positive duty for B to act, even though B holding his hand out may have saved A's life. This is a controversial issue as the law allows one to watch a person drown without them being prosecuted for any offence. However in some European countries this is different such as in France and Germany where there is a duty of easy rescue and failure to do so will amount to a criminal offence2. As I have earlier said generally there is no liability for failing to act, however there are six exceptions and if a person fails to act then they will be committing a criminal law offence, there is a vast amount of case law in this field which will be used to illustrate the exceptions to an omission. The first exception I will discuss is a special relationship, this is where the law will require an individual to act where there is a special relationship, it is generally recognised the more closer the relationship the more likely the law will impose a duty.
Supportive Relationships in a care setting.
SUPPORTIVE RELATIONSHIPS CORE PRINCIPLES OF CARE > 1990's a basic set of principles were identified > Originally known as Care Value Base > These principles are- o To foster equality and diversity of people o To foster peoples rights and responsibilities o To maintain confidentiality of information > Identify the core of care and are the minimal standards for service providers to work to. > Summed up in five words to which vulnerable people should be treated with: o dignity and respect, o equality -the quality of care provided and quantity of care depending on the individual needs o fairness - retaining the individuals rights and responsibilities as citizens regardless of support needed o privacy - confidentiality and them being able to have their own space. BUILDING EFFECTIVE RELATIONSHIPS > Professional and personal friendship relationship differs according to Neil Moonie (2005) because o Professional work within a framework of values o Professionals work always involves a duty of care for the welfare of the individual o Professional relationships involve establishing appropriate boundaries > It is up to the professional to ensure the client and their relationship is kept within the boundaries of the legislation and professional bodies > Contemporary views encourage the person centred approach where the vulnerable are kept in the centre of
Law should encourage citizens in their civic duty to do 'the right thing' in a moral sense and not to turn a blind eye or to fail to act to help someone who is in need. Consider to what extent the criminal law relating to omissions (failures to act)
"Law should encourage citizens in their civic duty to do 'the right thing' in a moral sense and not to turn a blind eye or to fail to act to help someone who is in need." Consider to what extent the criminal law relating to omissions (failures to act) reflects this view. An omission is when a person voluntarily fails to act. The general rule is that an omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence. This was explained by Stephen J in which he stated; "A sees B drowning and is able to save B by holding out his hand. A abstains in doing so in order that B drowns. A has committed no offence." However, there are exceptions where the failure to act is the actus reus of a crime; an Act of Parliament can create liability for an omission because the defendant has a statutory duty. An example of this would be if a parent had neglected their child of food and clothing then they would be in breach of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Therefore the defendant could be prosecuted for not carrying out the duty made by this act. Another exception to the rule of omissions is if the person has a contractual duty, and fails to carry out their responsibilities in their contract. This happened in the case of R V Pittwood 1902 where the defendant was a railway-crossing keeper who failed to shut the gates when a train was approaching which resulted in the death of someone who was
Law of Tort Assignment.
Law of Tort Assignment (i) Since the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, it seems that some areas of tort law have been affected by the Act to a great extent. One specific element of tort law that has been affected is 'duty of care in negligence.' The tort of negligence may signify 'whereby persons who by carelessness have caused damage to others and may be held liable to pay compensation.' 1 However, it is not always the case when 'careless conduct which causes damage will give rise to an action.' 2 As this essay will focus on the impact of the Human Rights Act on duty of care in negligence, it is necessary to determine 'whether the type of loss suffered by the claimant in the particular way in which it occurred can ever be actionable,' 3 as this may play a great role in the development of the tort of negligence. Before a duty of care is held to exist, the requirement established in Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568 must be satisfied: (a) 'Foreseeability of the damage; (b) A sufficiently 'proximate' relationship between the parties; and (c) Even where (a) and (b) are satisfied it must be 'just and reasonable' to impose such a duty.' 4 The Human Rights Act 1998 gives 'further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights.' 5 The aim of the Human Rights Act is as stated in section 6 (1), 'courts should
LAW OF DELICT
Law case studies for Delict DEBBIE GUNN CASE STUDY 1 Q1) What is a duty of care? A duty of care can be defined as a legal obligation, to give a level of care towards another individual, to avoid injury or harm to that individual or their property. It is that 'a person should take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that they could reasonably foresee to harm their neighbour'. This can be defined as say a father had a duty of care to a sick child to get that child to a doctor, if that father had done so he had acted to help that child so had acted in his duty to care, had he failed to do so and not have called the doctor to help then this would have been classed as an 'omission' or failure to act. In Danny's case he did not take reasonable care Under the law of Delict negligence is harm caused unintentionally and negligence claims come about because the person who is at fault or caused the harm owed a duty of care and has breached this by causing harm, loss or damage to the pursuer. In order to succeed when bringing a negligence claim the pursuer must show that the defender owed him/her a duty of care and the defender was in the position to cause harm which they failed to prevent occurring and the pursuer must also show that it was the defenders breach of duty that was the main cause for the loss or harm caused by him/her. The legal precedent for
