DUTY OF CARE

Created by: ElleW88
Created on: 10-12-19 17:02

View mindmap

Negligence : Duty of Care
- Caparo v Dickman: Three stage Test
  - 1. Reasonably Foreseeable
    - 2. Relationship of Proximity
      - 3. Fair, just and reasonable
- Economic Loss
  - Pure economic loss
    - Murphy v Brentwood DC 1991
    - Hedley Byrne v Heller 1964
      - Negligent Misstatment
      - 1. Special relationship of trust and confidence between the parties.
        2. The party preparing the advice/info has voluntarily assumed the risk (expressed or implied)
        3. Has be reliance on the advice/information by the other parties.
        4. the reliance was reasonable in the circumstances
        Caparo v Dickman 1990
        
        Smith v Eric S. Bush 1990
        
        Customs & Excise Commissions v Barclays Bank 2006
        
        Esso Petroleum v Mardon 1976
- Psychiatric Harm
  - Primary Victims
    - Page v Smith 1996
    - Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd 2008
    - Grieves v FT Everard &Sons 2007
  - Secondary Victims
    - McLoughlin v O'Brian 1982
      - Proximity of space and time
        Galli-Atkinson v Seghal 2003
        
        Sion v Hampstead Health Authority 1994
        
        North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters 2002
    - Alcock v Chief Constable of S. Yorks
    - Proximity of Relationship
      - McFarlane v E.E. Caledonia 1992
      - Alcock v Chief Constable of S. Yorks
    - Proximity of space and time
      - Galli-Atkinson v Seghal 2003
      - Sion v Hampstead Health Authority 1994
      - North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters 2002
    - Messengers
      - AB v Tamside & Glossop Health Authority 1996
      - Farrel v Avon Health Authority 2001
    - Rescuers
      - White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police 1998
    - Occupational Stress
      - Walker v Northumberland County Council 1995
      - Hatton v Sutherland 2001
      - Barber v Somerset County Council 2004

Get Revising

DUTY OF CARE

Comments

Similar Law resources: