Tort Law - Duty of Care

The duty of care is one of the key aspects of tort law and provides a foundation for claimants when bringing a case.

The origin of the duty of care comes from Brett MR in Heaven v Pender [1883] but the most famous formulation is the neighbour principle from Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] by Lord Atkin.

Circumstances in which a duty of care can exist were broadened a great deal in the case of Anns v Merton LBC [1978] by Lord Wilberforce who included policy factors but cases such as Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi Co Ltd [1983] showed that this was too far wide-ranging and opened up liability for even pure economic loss.

The law was narrowed in Hill v CC of W Yorkshire [1988] and the modern test now comes from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] where three factors are considered: 1) Foreseeability 2) Proximity and 3) whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.

The duty of care is based on the objective standard or 'the man on the Clapham omnibus'. The law is relatively forgiving of the ordinary man (Wells v Cooper [1958]; The Ogopogo [1972]).

A variation in the standard has been applied to children (McHale v Watson [1966]; Latham v Johnson [1913]) but has been applied strictly to drivers (Nettleship v Weston [1971]; Broome v Perkins [1987]).

Professionals are held to the standard of a normal person in their profession and the question of what is to be considered normal practice can be derived from the Bolam test (Bolam v Friern Hospital [1957]) where it was held that if the practice is supported by a substantial body of opinion within the profession then it will be allowed within the duty of care.

The Hand formula is useful when making a judgment and can be expressed as the incursion of liability where the burden is less than the possibility of damage occurring multiplied by the loss incurred. See further: Latimer v AEC Ltd. [1953]; Bolton v Stone [1951]; Paris v Stepney BC [1951]; Haley v London Electricity Board [1965].

The burden of proof is assessed on the balance of probabilities and in certain circumstances res ipsa loquitur can be said to apply as per Erle CJ in Scott v London and St. Katherine Docks Co. [1865].

[DarkCrimeLab]

Thank you so much, I have tried to watch loads of different law channels as a 1st year law student but yours is the only ones that are clear cut and straight to the facts on how we should apply each area of Law.
Once again Thank you.

[PankhuriKhare-mr]

You are an amazing teacher! I find your videos much better than any law books/summary notes or guides. Also, your command on your pronunciation and pauses is great.

[wm]

I nailed my law exam thanks to your videos! Thank you so much for everything you are doing for us! Greetings from France

[mintaeyuk]

I CANNOT THANK YOU ENOUGH!!!! That was so clear and just a pleasure to listen to! My exam is tomorrow and i was panicking on how to approach the questions. After watching this I am quite relieved now. It is as if the jumbled mess of an idea i had about the concept was carefully pieced together! Thank you so much! Bless you!

[francispowell]

Recently, it was determined in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2018) that the Caparo test should only be applied to entirely new situations and that the courts should apply precedent in all cases that are not novel (already considered).

[pthegirl]

You should write law concentrate books like LLB answered per example. Law is such a hard subject but you make it simple. Thank you.

[ianmckenna]

Great video. So much useful information packed in but done so clearly that it's not confusing at all. Thanks, Marcus.

[Milkymooize]

Please do a video on vicarious liability! Your videos are amazing.

[joelander]

Legal rules and principles can be boiled down to a really simple explanation, and you do this brilliantly. I would love an update on this video in light of Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] and Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018]

[sharonshanley]

I just absorb your videos so easily... You're a star! ;-)

[jamielodge]

It's worth noting that the second part of this video (8:54 onwards) is referring to the question of 'breach of duty'. So having established that the defendant (D) owed the claimant (C) a duty of care, you would then move onto the question of whether the D's acts/omissions had breached that duty owed to C by using the Hand Formula as described in the video. It is important to not conflate these two questions in an exam and assuming that just because D owed C a duty, that D has automatically breached it.

[simmons]

Love your videos - they really do help underpin understanding of key principles and more. Heaps of thanks.😀

[julieschmidtlaw]

You have inspired me to make my own channel, thank you! I'm a big fan. From another Cleaver (from New Zealand!) :)

[MsRated]

Always a pleasure to watch, glad you kept going with these vids :)

[hangerlanetheearthman]

brill bro..one love, , (love the tone, ,over slunber, george benson, , abbey rd )

[lynettejackson]

Hey there, the Bolam test has been expanded now to include...rationality and Bollito v Hackney? I really enjoy listening to you on my way to uni. I usually pop on one of your clips to prepare for whatever lecture I have. It is a great way to go into a lecture. Cheers Marcus.

[alex-louisenicholson]

Do you have a video on a breach of duty ?

[comordor]

Hello Marcus, can you tell What important obiters can be found in the decision of Lord Denning MR in nettleship v wetson 1971 and what role it has played in the development of the law?

[christophereichner]

I have a question, the Bolam Test or Nettleship v Weston are they not used in the field Breach of Duty in the Caparo Test?

[aditta]

hey, I can't get legal aid. I've been victims of harrasment, could you help me in a calculation. s.services failed to take my concerns since dec 2017?