Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The common law position regarding negligence recognised strict categories of negligence. In 1932, the duty of a care applied despite no prior relationship or interaction and was not constrained by privity of contract. [2] Here, a duty of care was found to be owed by a manufacturer to an end consumer, for negligence in the production of his goods.
Situations in which a duty of care have previously been held to exist include doctor and patient, manufacturer and consumer, [2] and surveyor and mortgagor. [3] Accordingly, if there is an analogous case on duty of care, the court will simply apply that case to the facts of the new case without asking itself any normative questions. [4]
The three-stage Caparo test for establishing a duty of care requires (i) foreseeability of damage, (ii) a relationship characterised by the law as one of proximity or neighbourhood and (iii) that the situation should be one in which the court considers it would be fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of given scope on one ...
Heyman, 60 A.L.R. 1, 48, per Brennan J. Assuming for the purpose of the argument that the relationship between the auditor of a company and individual shareholders is of sufficient proximity to give rise to a duty of care, I do not understand how the scope of that duty can possibly extend beyond the protection of any individual shareholder from ...
Hedley Byrne v Heller was held as an example of a case in which there was a reduction in the scope of the duty of care. The Anns Test was established a by Lord Wilberforce as two-stage test. It required a sufficient relationship of proximity based upon foreseeability and then considerations of reasons that there should not be a duty of care.
Caparo v. Dickman: 3 Tests for duty of care is whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable, whether there was a relationship of proximity between claimant and defendant; and whether it is just and reasonable to impose a duty. House of Lords case. McDonald's coffee case: An American court case that became a cause célèbre for advocates of ...
Lord Woolf expediently (and somewhat arbitrarily) distinguished the ambulance service as different - despite answering 999 calls, it is part of the health service and thus shares the health service's duty of care to those in tortious proximity (he declared people to whom an ambulance is dispatched were in sufficient 'proximity'); he deemed it ...
Is there a sufficient relationship of proximity, such that carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage to the latter (in which case, a prima facie duty of care arises)? If so, are there any considerations which ought to reduce or limit; the scope of the duty, the class of person to whom it is owed, or