Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 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.
The other aspects of fiduciary duty are a director's duty of loyalty and (possibly) duty of good faith. Put simply, a director owes a duty to exercise good business judgment and to use ordinary care and prudence in the operation of the business. They must discharge their actions in good faith and in the best interest of the corporation ...
As a result, together with the duty of care under Spring, many organizations have issued guidance as to best practice to be undertaken by reference providers. [6] The duty of care has also been held to apply in non-reference situations, as noted in 2011 in McKie v Swindon College. [7]
It was noteworthy that both parties accepted that the school owed a duty of care. That duty of care, lined up with that set out in Lennon v. McCarthy & Anor [5] where Ó Dálaigh C.J. said that "the duty of a school master is to take such care of his pupils as a careful father would of his children."
Lord Slynn held that the doctor had a duty of care in regards to the pregnancy, but not towards the costs of rearing the child: [5] "The doctor undertakes a duty of care in regard to the prevention of pregnancy: it does not follow that the duty includes also avoiding the costs of rearing the child if born and accepted into the family.
Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2 is a leading English tort law case on the test for a duty of care. The House of Lords, following the Court of Appeal, set out a "three-fold test". In order for a duty of care to arise in negligence:
In the usual case, having established that there is a duty of care, the claimant must prove that the defendant failed to do what the reasonable person ("reasonable professional", "reasonable child") would have done in the same situation. If the defendant fails to come up to the standard, this will be a breach of the duty of care.