These are the revision notes I made from the Principles of Tort Law textbook (by Rachel Mulheron) for Negligence - Duty of Care. They can be used to answer any Negligence bases problem question which is focused around the issue of duty of care
I used these notes for exam revision and got a high fir...
R.Mulheron, Principles of Tort Law, Cambridge, Cambridge UP, 2016, pp. 37-72; 99-106;
113-124; 131-146; 152-169
The Tort of Negligence
1. D owed C a duty of care to avoid causing C the type of injury of which he complains
2. D breached the duty of care, by falling below the standard of reasonable care which the law
demands
3. (a) D’s breach caused the damage complained of by C
3. (b) the damage complained of by C was not too remote (unforeseeable) at law to be recoverable
CAPARO TEST
Reasonable Foreseeability of harm:
At different stages the strictness of the test varies a lot.
Duty of care – at its widest, ‘was some type of harm reasonably foreseeable?’
Breach stage – narrower, ‘was the type of accident or incident reasonably foreseeable,
against which D should have taken precautionary steps?’
Remoteness Stage – narrowest ‘was the kind/type of harm suffered by C reasonably
foreseeable?’
D must have actually foreseen, or reasonably foreseen the risk that his failure to exercise reasonable
care and/or skill might cause harm to C. a risk is reasonably foreseeable if it is ‘real task’
o Some general type of harm:
Caparo- the test by Lord Bridge was ‘the foreseeability of damage’ as an
ingredient to the DoC.
Van Colle v CC of Hertfordshire Police, Lord Bingham, it must be
shown that harm to C was reasonably foreseeable consequence of
what D did/failed to do.
It must be a real risk, not a mere possibility i.e. one which a reasonable
person would not judge far-fetched overseas Tankship (UK) v Miller
Steamship
Follow that, merely possible risks may be foreseeable.
Does not matter about ‘likelihood’ or balance of probabilities.
Whenever the word probable is used it does not entail proof on a
balance of probabilities Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd
Mitchell v Glasgow; the concept of reasonable foreseeability
embraces a wide degree of possibility, from highly probable to the
possible but highly improbable.
D does not need to have foreseen harm to C specifically, where D has never
had a past relationship/knowledge of C. where D knows C personally then C
may be an actually foreseen victim (Nettleship v Weston)
o The test of foreseeability is an objective test, whilst an objective tst, is not applied
completely hypothetical D. It should be a reasonable person in that particular D’s
shoes.
This makes the strictness of the test vary e.g. Islington LBC v UCL Hosp NHS
trust; surgeon’s secretary informed patient, C, that her operation was
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller laelaw. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £3.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
