duty of care

In Nettleship v Weston the court decided a learner driver owed the instructor the same standard of care as that provided by an experienced driver. In Ward v Tesco it was decided by the courts that Tesco's had a duty of care to their customers and that they should insure that they will come to no harm. In both cases the defendant was found guilty.

However, the neighbour principle is now seen as too broad a statement. The courts have now sought to further explain the basis of liability by providing supplemental criteria, which is found in the decision of Caparo V Dickman. The decision referred to three criteria that need to be satisfied in order to make a conviction. The three criteria which establish whether a duty of care exists or not are reasonable foresee ability, proximity and, fair, just and reasonable.

Reasonable foresee ability basically means was the consequence of the action of the defendant probable, for example if a driver's not paying sufficient attention, it's foreseeable that he'll crash into another car, so a duty of care is owed to the other driver in the collision. A case to illustrate these criteria is Bradford - Smart v West Sussex. In this case the claimant had a stroke due to pressure from the police to perform a police operation. However, where the court was satisfied that reasonable foresee ability had been established, whether for physical or psychiatric injury or both, it was immaterial whether the foreseeable injury caused had been caused directly or through another form of injury not reasonably foreseeable. Another case to illustrate these criteria is Farrell v Avon Health Authority. In this case the claimant was told that his baby had died and later found out it hadn't. Because of this suffered form alcoholism, drug abuse and developed post traumatic stress disorder. It was foreseeable that there was a real risk of him suffering a recognised psychiatric disorder as a result of the incident and therefore was awarded £10,000.

The second criteria are proximity. Proximity involves the notion of nearness or closeness, a nexus or relationship. A case to illustrate this is Topp v London Country Bus. In this case a bus company left a mini-bus parked in a public place with the keys in the ignition, the bus was stolen, and, in the course of the theft, was involved in an accident in which a woman cyclist was killed. Even though the bus was in an assessable place, they couldn't be help reliable for the act of a third party. Another case to illustrate proximity is Gibson v Orr CCof Strathclyde. In this case D the chief constable whose officers left the scene of a collapsed road bridge without ensuring there was warning for vehicles on the other side of the river. C was a passenger in a vehicle drove off a collapsed bridge. Once a constable had taken control of a road traffic situation which presented a danger, the law regarded that constable as being in such a relationship with road users as to satisfy the requisite element of proximity. C won

The final criteria is fair, just and reasonable. This means that the action must be these three words. A case to illustrate this is Griffiths v Brown and Lindsay. In this case The taxi driver's duty to the passenger came to an end once the passenger alighted and it was neither reasonable nor practicable to require a taxi driver to make an assessment of a passenger's state of intoxication before setting him down. C lost.

In conclusion I believe that William did have a duty of care to Lyn and should therefore be convicted. All three elements of duty of care are present as it was reasonably foreseeable that knocking files of a shelf could cause harm, Lyn was within close proximity and his actions were not just or reasonable, as he could have used a chair or ladder to get the files down. This means that William therefore did owe Lyn a duty of care.