chapt 4 142-152 mcb

The law of contribution applies when two defendants are both liable in tort to compensate a victim for some loss. If one defendant is successfully sued, they can claim contribution from the other defendant to share the cost of compensation.

The factors that courts take into account in determining whether a duty of care was owed.

Cattle v Stockton Waterworks Co (1875) LR 10 QB 453, where no duty of care was owed to contractors not to delay them in their work.

Lower courts need to use a test to determine whether a duty of care was owed in a novel case, where the issue has not yet been settled.

In cases where the defendant failed to save the claimant from harm, or did something positive that foreseeably resulted in the claimant suffering pure economic loss or psychiatric illness.

The courts' view as to when it would be ‘fair, just and reasonable’ to find that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care.

Whether the defendant local council owed a duty to turn the beaches around a lake into marshland to prevent people from swimming and endangering themselves.

Imposing a 'criminal-catching' duty of care on police might subject them to a special disadvantage they do not deserve, even if it results in better performance.

Because it prevents the law from becoming unduly uncertain by ensuring that actions are only restricted if harm is reasonably foreseeable.

No duty of care was owed by defendants to claimants when a virus causing foot and mouth disease escaped and temporarily suspended the claimants’ business.

As more cases are decided on whether a duty of care was owed, fewer cases raise genuinely novel issues, reducing the need for tests.

It made it too easy for the courts to find that a duty of care was owed in a particular case, and made the law on when one person would owe another a duty of care intolerably uncertain.

The law should develop novel categories of negligence incrementally and by analogy with established categories, rather than by a massive extension of a prima facie duty of care restrained only by indefinable considerations which ought to negative, or to reduce or limit the scope of the duty or the class of the person to whom it is owed.

Because a duty not to do something is less intrusive on individual liberty than a duty to do something.

If everything else indicates that the law should impose a duty of care, it would still be wrong to do so if it is contrary to the public interest.

Reasonable foreseeability of harm.

A duty to protect against obvious risks of self-inflicted harm exists only in cases where there is no genuine or informed choice, such as employees required to take the risk, children unable to recognize danger, or prisoners in despair.

A driver owes a duty of care to nearby pedestrians because it is reasonably foreseeable that they will be physically injured if the driver drives dangerously. However, the driver does not owe a duty of care to the pedestrian's employer because the only foreseeable loss to the employer is economic, and there is no 'special relationship' between the driver and the employer.

A duty of care will be owed if it is reasonably foreseeable that the defendant’s conduct would result in the claimant suffering harm, and there are no policy considerations that would weigh against finding that such a duty was owed.

First, one has to ask whether there is a sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood such that, in the reasonable contemplation of the alleged wrongdoer, carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage to the claimant. Second, if the first question is answered affirmatively, it is necessary to consider whether there are any considerations which ought to negative, or to reduce or limit the scope of the duty or the class of person to whom it was owed or the damages to which a breach of it may give rise.

The House of Lords rejected the idea because it was considered ridiculous to impose such a duty on the council.

A policy maximalist might consider it legitimate to impose a duty of care on police forces to galvanize them into action, even if it means they could be sued for negligence by victims of crimes.

A duty to take care not to remove a child from the family home without good reason, owed to the parents of the child.

No, one cannot be held liable in negligence for acting reasonably.

Courts will find that A owed B a duty of care if B suffers distress due to A's actions only if there existed some kind of 'special relationship' between A and B. The mere foreseeability of distress is not enough.

No, the UK Supreme Court is not bound by the decisions of lower courts, its own decisions, or the decisions of the House of Lords.

The 'incremental test' suggested by Brennan J in the High Court of Australia and the Caparo test (sometimes referred to as the 'threefold test').

In addition to foreseeability of damage, there should exist between the party owing the duty and the party to whom it is owed a relationship characterised by the law as one of 'proximity' or 'neighbourhood' and the situation should be one in which the court considers it fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of a given scope upon the one party for the benefit of the other.

Whether the marine hydrographer owed a duty of care in preparing a map of the seabed that omitted a reef, leading to a ship collision.

Foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is fair and reasonable to hold the defendant responsible.

The seriousness of the harm that B stood to suffer if A acted as he did.

1. It was reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would suffer harm as a result of the defendant’s actions or inaction; 2) There was a relationship of proximity between the defendant and the claimant; 3) It would be ‘fair, just and reasonable’ to find that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care.

Whenever one person is by circumstances placed in such a position with regard to another that every one of ordinary sense who did think would at once recognise that if he did not use ordinary care and skill in his own conduct with regard to those circumstances he would cause danger of injury to the person or property of the other, a duty arises to use ordinary care and skill to avoid such danger.

The claimant must show that his case was analogous to cases where it had already been established that a duty of care would be owed, that there existed a relationship of 'proximity' between him and the defendant, and that it was 'fair, just and reasonable' to find a duty of care.

No, an employer does not owe a duty to hide the truth about an ex-employee’s performance, even if it is reasonably foreseeable that telling the truth will stop the ex-employee from getting a job.

It could lead to actions being raised against police forces, significant diversion of police manpower, and reopening of closed investigations.

If a military officer owed a duty of care, they might avoid putting soldiers in harm's way to avoid being sued later, even when doing so is necessary to achieve military objectives.

Because the loss was not serious enough to warrant the law’s intervening to require A to look out for B’s interests.

They set a limit on the losses that someone would be liable for if he or she breached a duty of care.

In cases where the defendant did something positive that foreseeably resulted in the claimant’s person or property being harmed.

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.

Lord Atkin argued that there must be a general conception of relations giving rise to a duty of care, of which particular cases are instances.

The House of Lords found that the police did not owe Jacqueline Hill a duty to take reasonable steps to catch Peter Sutcliffe before he could kill again, due to the lack of a ‘special relationship’ and insufficient ‘proximity’ between them.

If a judge feared being sued by the losing party, they might be less concerned about giving the right decision and more concerned about avoiding litigation by 'splitting the difference' between the parties.

When it was reasonably foreseeable that B would suffer physical injury or damage to his property as a result of A’s actions.

Courts will refuse to find that A owed B a duty of care if A's actions only made B economically worse off because the mere fact that it was reasonably foreseeable that B would lose money is not enough to justify a finding of duty of care. Something more, such as a 'special relationship' between A and B, is required.

A key factor that courts consider is the need to be 'fair'. Courts may refuse to find a duty of care if doing so might expose a defendant to 'liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class'.

Some kind of special relationship or special circumstances that would justify finding a duty of care.

They believed that holding the council liable would dilute the neighbour's liability and encourage Mitchell's estate to target the council instead of the primarily responsible neighbour.

Because it amounts to an instruction for courts to act reasonably, without providing concrete guidance for predicting when a duty of care will be found.

The Court of Appeal held that it would not be 'fair, just and reasonable' to find that the commanding officer had owed the soldier a duty to ensure he did not drink too much at the party.

How close does this case have to be to a situation where it is established that a duty of care was owed before we can find that a duty of care was owed in this case?

The House of Lords held that the classification society did not owe a duty of care to the cargo owners because finding such a duty could result in liability disproportionate to the fault. Even though it was foreseeable that the cargo owners would suffer property damage, the potential for indeterminate liability was a significant factor.

Students should answer from the perspective of a lower court judge, using available authorities rather than tests unless the issue is genuinely novel.

Lord Keith of Kinkel criticized the Anns test in cases such as Peabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co Ltd, Yuen Kun Yeu v Att-Gen for Hong Kong, Rowling v Takaro Properties Ltd, and Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire.

'Proximity' is a label that describes circumstances from which courts pragmatically conclude that a duty of care exists.

The Court of Appeal held that the police had not owed the claimant a duty to take reasonable steps to stop him escaping from police custody.

The House of Lords held that the council had not owed Mitchell a duty to warn him that he might be in danger from his violent neighbour.

It had very little impact in terms of being used by the courts to determine whether or not a defendant owed a claimant a duty of care.

The UK Supreme Court may employ a test to focus on what should be taken into account and to give the impression that it is bound by rules.

Counsel for the claimants placed great reliance on Donoghue v Stevenson, but the judges found it had no direct bearing on the case and emphasized that new categories in the law do not spring into existence overnight.

Courts will usually find such a duty if there existed some kind of ‘special relationship’ between the parties.

Both were inspired by the idea that existing authorities on duty of care must have a common element, which they identified as foreseeability of harm.

Acts involve doing something that makes another person worse off, while omissions involve failing to do something that would make another person better off.

If the map had not been drawn up, the ship’s captain might have relied on other means to spot the reef and avoid it, making the hydrographer's action of drawing the map a contributing factor to the collision.