A level Law: Negligence: The Duty of Care

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]

House of Lords Decision

The House of Lords decided that by a majority of 3 to 2 that a legal duty of care could be owed by a manufacturer to a consumer even though no contractual duty existed
The three judges who supported this establishment of a legal duty of care outside of a contractual relationship were Lord Atkin, Lord Macmillan and Lord Thankerton
All three judges concentrated on the duty owed by a manufacturer to a consumer in their judgments
These judgments suggested that the legal duty of care could exist beyond that owed by a manufacturer to a consumer
Lord Atkin stated that there was a 'neighbour principle', which imposes a universal duty to take care - "You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably forsee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in my contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question"
Lord Macmillan stated that 'the categories of negligence are never closed'

Cases

Claimants wanted reassurance that they could provide credit to another company . The financial stability was reassured by the other company's bank (the defendant)
Soon after giving credit, the other company defaulted and the claimants were liable for its debts
Since there was no consideration paid by Hedley Byrne, there wasn't really a contract in existence - all there was was reliance by Heller, who had lost out, which is why they sued in negligence
Hedley Byrne failed in their claim, but the court laid down four principles which they said established a duty of care:

Financial relationship of trust exists (i.e money is paid to one side for information that they trust will be accurate)
The party preparing the info assumes the risk - takes responsibility for any adverse consequences if the information that they are preparing is wrong
There has been reliance on that info by the claimant
This reliance was reasonable in the circumstances

Young offenders were doing supervised work on Brown Sea Island under the Borstal Regime
One night the officers retired for the evening, leaving the boys unsupervised
Seven of them escaped and stole a boat which collided with a yacht owned by the claimant
The Home Office owed a duty of care for their omission as they were in a position of control over the 3rd party who caused the damage and it was foreseeable that harm would result from their inaction

Limits on Duty of Care

The Court of Appeal and the House of Lords have said in the past that a duty of care should be limited for the following reasons

Too many claims clogging up the courts
Means that cases could be weighted too much in favour of claimants if all they had to do was just say that a defendant owed them a duty of care
Courts' way of trying to achieve Natural Justice

Could potentially have to pay out for more claims
They would also have to offer insurance on a much wider range of relationships that the court has decided carry with them a duty of care

More claims arising from an activity would mean a society that is scared of being sued - making everyone litigation shy and risk averse
DofE might possibly not take place because of the litigation risk

Where judges decide to interpret a term or a law in a certain way, so as to protect public morality and safety

More Cases

Anns' house was breaking under poor foundations
Claimed off council, who had a lease on the building
Did a local council owe a duty to inspect a building for its occupier during building?
Yes, recovery was allowed as there was material damage, despite there being no contractual relationship

In Anns, the HoL paved the way for the court to find that a duty of care exists in a way that meant they weren't constrained by precedent
All the court needs to do is assess whether it would be reasonable on the facts of the case to find that a relationship of sufficient proximity exists - without saying what that would be based on
Once you've decided that one exists, you then need to look into whether there are any reasons why it shouldn't or whether it should be restricted in some way
It is likely that a duty was found in this relationship because the issue was one of health and safety, and also there was an actual or quasi contractual relationship between the Council and the tenants in the flat - the Council would have had a contractual duty to maintain the flats, which they failed to discharge
Junior Books v Veitchi (1983)

Defendants laid a floor in a factory for the plaintiffs
Plaintiffs claimed that due to negligence of defendants, the floor was faulty, so defendants were liable
Plaintiff brought action claiming for the costs of relaying the floor, loss of profits, and the cost to the factory for getting the floor replaced
Held- the parties were sufficiently close and therefore there was a scope of duty between them.
On this basis, the plaintiff could recover the cost of repairing the floor

A level Law