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]
There are two ways in which a duty of care may be established: the defendant and claimant are within one of the recognised relationships where a duty of care is established by precedent; or; outside these relationships, according to the principles developed by case law. The principles delineated in Caparo v Dickman specify a tripartite test:
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 was a landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords.It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence in common law jurisdictions worldwide, as well as in Scotland, establishing general principles of the duty of care.
Only in novel cases, where established principles did not provide an answer, would courts need to go beyond established principles to decide whether to recognize a duty of care. [14] In the instant case, the existence of a duty depended on the application of established principles of negligence.
In the tort of negligence, the term used is duty of care. [7] The case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) [8] established the modern law of negligence, laying the foundations of the duty of care and the fault principle which, (through the Privy Council), have been adopted throughout the Commonwealth. May Donoghue and her friend were in a café in ...
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:
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 is an English tort law case on economic loss in English tort law resulting from a negligent misstatement. Prior to the decision, the notion that a party may owe another a duty of care for statements made in reliance had been rejected, [1] with the only remedy for such losses being in contract law. [2]
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.