Tort Law - Duty of Care
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 тра 2024
- 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].
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.
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).
thank you, youve made me understand this concept more. Been looking through textbooks for ages
This is nothing new. The Caparo test was supposed to be used this way by its creators.
@@_DigitalRemake Don't be rude,.
Always a pleasure to watch, glad you kept going with these vids :)
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.
Ha, thank you! Those pauses etc. are something I do worry about!
kindly make more videos@@marcuscleaver
Made things way clearer, thank you!
Great video. So much useful information packed in but done so clearly that it's not confusing at all. Thanks, Marcus.
Love your videos - they really do help underpin understanding of key principles and more. Heaps of thanks.😀
You should write law concentrate books like LLB answered per example. Law is such a hard subject but you make it simple. Thank you.
Please do a video on vicarious liability! Your videos are amazing.
I just absorb your videos so easily... You're a star! ;-)
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!
I nailed my law exam thanks to your videos! Thank you so much for everything you are doing for us! Greetings from France
That's great to hear! Bien joué!
merci beaucoup !
Thank you so much for this !
keep it up! will be waiting for more
You have inspired me to make my own channel, thank you! I'm a big fan. From another Cleaver (from New Zealand!) :)
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]
keep up the great videos.
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.
Yeah I always find that idea interesting though. Hard to imagine circumstances where you meet the Bolam test of a body of medical opinion but fail the Bolitho test that says that same medical opinion is irrational =/
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?
EXELLENT video!
Hello I was wondering if you would still make videos on tort law, such as vicarious liability and occupiers liability
You’re a life saver
Excellent video
Very useful!
Love your videos! Just a heads up that this DoC video wasn't included in your Tort Playlist!
Oh man will get on that. :/
@@marcuscleaver what would be an counter argument to hunwicks bs Royal mail & pulkev vs ae day services? Thanks
@@Lescandalefinir the cases allow for employers to ignore proper procedure
@@marcuscleaver thanks, you're a great help
Can some one tell me I'f some one has a duty of care do they have to see the person with that duty if they dont want to
if there is a precedent to support your case , how do we approach the problem ? like just say there is an established duty of care and the duty was clear to be imposed ? thanks , kind regards
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?
great video... thank you you helped me with EU Law. please do commercial videos
great summary
Thank you as always David!!
@marcuscleaver / or anyone: In the Anns and Merton, what do you mean by "if there was a good policy reason"?
+Benjamin Forsey It's not well defined but essentially means the courts won't impose a duty where doing so would have an impact on the core functions of a tortfeasor.
Hi Marcus, do you think you would do any videos on:
Nuisance
Occupiers' Liability
Trespass
Strict Liability
Vicarious Liability
I like your summarisations and the cases you cover, its a great kick-off for the topics.
No worries if not, great work!
brill bro..one love ,, (love the singing,,,bbbbbiiiiiiiiii,,,good tone ,,over slunber ,george benson,, abbey rd )
Do you have a video on a breach of duty ?
Does everyone have a duty of care? If someone crashes their trolley into you in the supermarket and you break your leg as a result, can you sue the person? Did they have a duty of care to you?
Great new friend
Lovely vedio
Could we have a claim for tort of negligence against the AA? They picked our vehicle up, put it on a truck to go home (2hrs) but then abandoned it half-hour up the road, at the side of the road. Then left it for two days, each time telling us it was being picked up in an hour or two, went on for 45 hours and the vehicle got smashed into, left somewhere we would never had left it. We got AA cover so a broken down vehicle was NOT left on a road. Now won’t take any responsibility for their negligence and liability. Beyond stressful and left us totally abandoned!!!
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.
I should have never left law school, wow.
Do you still use this forum?
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?
Thanks dude.!! you have a chilled way of presenting in a humble way. You are far from those ponsy lawyers with big L.!!
Haha! Thanks man, much appreciated!
This guy is a real G!
I have 2 cases one from October 26 2019 he was charged with attempted murder but because of certain threats from people. I have to get this case started before October 26 2021 and it was dropped to assault despite the gruesome pictures and clearly caught red handed by the police. I mentioned restitution and suddenly I was treated like an outcast, harassed and on November 30th 2020 I suffered another assault. My life is a wreak and I badly need help. Please
Are you in the UK?
Good video
Thanks for the visit
I’m trying to find a case relating to a boat owned by a business owner at sea
Caparo Test (does not apply to all normal cases anymore)
Are you doing "USA Law" or "UK" law?
UK
Do you offer tuition?
No, sorry :(
If we use Bolam it means that it gives authority to the large body of uk Local Authority malpractice against people with autism, learning disabilities.
We also have to consider the disadvantages of have a strict and prescriptive law that does not allow medical practice to develop with the times.
Any chance you can explain reasonable grounds in ref to duty? Swain v Puri in particular. An idiots guide to legal principles would be ideal. 😂
A medico-legal disaster I’m glad to see the back of.