Law of Torts - Development of Duty of Care

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.

Present Situation

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.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Need Law Introduction ... click HERE
Private Policy About Us Contact Us Content References

LAW (LLB) NOTES is intended merely as an informational and educational resource and is not intended to offer legal advice, nor does it offer legal advice. The exchange of information, by electronic mail or otherwise, relating in any way to LAW (LLB) NOTES is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship.