How do legal duties of care arise?
- Alfred Eng
- Jul 27, 2021
- 4 min read
Discussing the 3-stage test laid down in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990)
Prelude
The courts work under the system of relying on precedents. Which is to lay down judgements on their current cases based on past cases that are identical or similar in nature. For example, imagine an accident concerning a negligent car driver and a pedestrian. Is there a legal relationship between the parties and that the defendant driver ought to have taken reasonable steps to avoid acts or omissions which they can reasonable foresee would be likely to injure the pedestrian?
Yes. But how would the courts establish this legal duty of care?
By the use of precedents. Incidents involving negligent driving is seen in cases like Roberts v Ramsbottom (1980) and Nettleship v Weston (1971) and these cases now set a precedent for future cases to follow.
However, what if a case that comes before the court concerns a relationship that is completely unheard of? A legal relationship between parties that have never come into existence in legal world? Which cases should the courts rely on to lay down their judgement of their current case? What should the courts do as they are now empty handed with no similar cases nor precedents to depend on?
The answer to all of the questions above is the 3-stage test laid down in Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990)
The case of Caparo v Dickman (1990)
We have seen, (from my previous article https://alfredengshuheng.wixsite.com/alfredsblog/post/the-history-of-the-tort-of-negligence) that there is a tighter test for duties of cares to arise since cases like Murphy v Brentwood District Council (1991) and Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) expressed their concerns for the sudden expansion in legal relationships. Therefore, the 3-stage test in Caparo (1990) is used to identify whether there is a legal relationship between parties that arises in novel situations and where cases of similar facts are dependent on past precedents.
The 3-stage test is made up of
Foreseeability + Proximity + Fair, Just and Reasonableness
1. Reasonable Foreseeability
The courts must ask whether a reasonable person in the shoes of the defendant would have reasonable foresight of the risks involved and where the standard of a reasonable person is taken from the case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856). It is to be noted that this test has developed from the neighbour's test seen in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932).
The best case to illustrate this criteria is the case of Langley v Dray (1998) and in this case, the claimant, who was a policeman got injured in a car crash whilst chasing a car thief and brought a claim against him for the injuries he has sustained. The defendant argued that he had not caused the policeman's injury and should not be liable. However, the Court of Appeal disagreed and stated that "the defendant ought to have known by increasing his speed to get away, he is putting the claimant in a greater risk than before and he is to be held accountable for his actions". Cases like Haley v London Electricity Board (1965) also highlights the fact that the number of blind people in the neighbourhood must also be taken into account.
After proving that a claim under the tort of negligence requires a person to possess reasonable foresight, the next element for the claim suffice would be one of proximity.
2. Proximity in law
Proximity usually means the closeness of one between another and in normal situations, we could assume that parties concerned are related to each other. However, we can see that in the case of Muirhead v Industrial Tank Speecialties (1985), Goff Lord Justice stated that the relationship between the parties need not to be known to each other, but the defendant could reasonably be expected to foresee that his or her actions could cause damage to the claimant.
Michael Watson was a famed British boxer and in a boxing match hosted by the British Boxing Board, he sustained severe injuries in the course of the match. The Board however, failed to provide safety arrangements beside the boxing ring and as a result, Watson is not able to access immediate care. An action was brought against the Board on the grounds that if they had made immediate medial attention available at the ringside, his injuries would be less sever. The Court of Appeal held that there was sufficient proximity in law in that the Board, who was the only body who could authorize boxing matches, should've taken Watson's interest into consideration.
The last element required is that the claim brought to the court must be one that is fair, just and and reasonable so that it would not put the defendant at a lost for an action which is not reasonably justified in the eyes of the law. Once again, this criteria allows the courts to balance the interest between the claimant and the defendant.
3. A famed case example is seen in the case of McFarlane v Tayside Health Board 1999. In this case, a couple has decided not to have any more children and the claimant's husband then undergo a vasectomy to fulfill this request. The problem however arises when, due to the surgeon's negligence, cause the claimant to be pregnant due to her husband's failed operation. The claimant then tries to bring an action against the doctor claiming for the costs of bringing up the child. At first instance, we might assume that 'but for' the defendant's negligence, the claimant is now in the position of a financial loss due to the extra expenditure needed for the cost of having another child. However, under the criteria of being fair, just and reasonable, the court held otherwise. Having a child is considered a blessing to most people and it is not reasonable for the courts to award the doctor compensation. The claimant's action fail as a result of not being fair, just and reasonable and being against the public policy.
Conclusion
From this passage, we can see that the courts and the claimant in question would have to meet several criterions to prove whether there is indeed a duty of care owed to the defendant. The courts would have to take each factor in extreme consideration as their decisions would be then used as precedent's for future cases to follow. As seen in the case of Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman, the scope of duty of care must be expanded incrementally rather than by a massive extension of a prima facie duty of care.
Comments