Heaven v Pender - - D must owe duty to P. The scope is not wide.
Donohue v Stevenson - - develop Neighbor Principle.
i. foresee ability
ii. proximity
*mix reaction of judges. Until 1970 in Dorset’s case.
Ann v Merton London - - the 2 stages test:-
i. sufficient relationship and foresee ability.
ii. whether likely to limit or reduce the scope of liability (Policy)
* open floodgate (economic L) misinterpretation.
Murphy v Brentwood - - overruled Ann’s case because wrongly decided.
Donohue v Stevenson - - develop Neighbor Principle.
i. foresee ability
ii. proximity
*mix reaction of judges. Until 1970 in Dorset’s case.
Ann v Merton London - - the 2 stages test:-
i. sufficient relationship and foresee ability.
ii. whether likely to limit or reduce the scope of liability (Policy)
* open floodgate (economic L) misinterpretation.
Murphy v Brentwood - - overruled Ann’s case because wrongly decided.
1. Reasonable foresee ability that harm will be caused. Please refer to the case of:-
i. Walker v Northumberland County Council
ii. Haley v London Electric Board (Blind man)
iii. Bourhill v Young (not reasonable)
2. Proximity Relationship. Please refer to the case of:-
i. Home Office v Dorset Yatch
ii. Bourhill v Young
3. Fair, Just and Reasonable
i. Roundel v Worsley (lawyer)
ii. Hill v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (police)
iii. March Rich v Bishop Rock Marina
See also textbooks.
