Essay On Duty Of Care
EXPLANATION:
For Jone and Tomasi to be efficacious in duty of care, the following needs to be formed;
i. Was loss to the claimant foreseeable? ii. Was there sufficient proximity between the parties? iii. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose duty of care?
‘Proximity simply means that the parties must be “sufficiently close” so that it is “reasonably foreseeable” that one party’s negligence would cause loss or damage to the other. Together with this, fairness is basically, “fair, just, and reasonable” for one party to owe duty to the other.’
APPLICATION:
In the case of Caparo Industry, it was held in the House of Lords that ‘a duty of care was owed to Caparo, however, there was not any sufficient proximity between Caparo and the auditors …show more content…
There was no contractual or close relationship among the two parties as relevant to Donoghue. The scenario of escaping, stealing a minibus and later damaging it is similar to the case of Dorset Yacht Company, in which they escaped while the officers were asleep, stole a yacht and crashed it into another yacht. The stealing of the minibus and damaging it is exactly the type of outcome that should have been foreseen by the officers. It should be considered fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of care to Jone and Tomasi, Cool Cars Ltd and the Sea Snakes team. This can also look into “neighbor principle” in which the ‘extended the tort of negligence beyond the tortfeasor and the immediate party. It raised the question of exactly which people might be affected by negligent actions.’ The escapees were being negligent in driving the minibus at a full speed rate which caused the death of Jone (who hit his head on the roadside and bled to death), while Tomasi, the bystander, and suffered serious injuries to his
For Jone and Tomasi to be efficacious in duty of care, the following needs to be formed;
i. Was loss to the claimant foreseeable? ii. Was there sufficient proximity between the parties? iii. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose duty of care?
‘Proximity simply means that the parties must be “sufficiently close” so that it is “reasonably foreseeable” that one party’s negligence would cause loss or damage to the other. Together with this, fairness is basically, “fair, just, and reasonable” for one party to owe duty to the other.’
APPLICATION:
In the case of Caparo Industry, it was held in the House of Lords that ‘a duty of care was owed to Caparo, however, there was not any sufficient proximity between Caparo and the auditors …show more content…
There was no contractual or close relationship among the two parties as relevant to Donoghue. The scenario of escaping, stealing a minibus and later damaging it is similar to the case of Dorset Yacht Company, in which they escaped while the officers were asleep, stole a yacht and crashed it into another yacht. The stealing of the minibus and damaging it is exactly the type of outcome that should have been foreseen by the officers. It should be considered fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of care to Jone and Tomasi, Cool Cars Ltd and the Sea Snakes team. This can also look into “neighbor principle” in which the ‘extended the tort of negligence beyond the tortfeasor and the immediate party. It raised the question of exactly which people might be affected by negligent actions.’ The escapees were being negligent in driving the minibus at a full speed rate which caused the death of Jone (who hit his head on the roadside and bled to death), while Tomasi, the bystander, and suffered serious injuries to his