'A Special Duty of Care': Exploring the narration and experience of teacher caring

2002 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 383-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracy Barber
Keyword(s):  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Teacher Caring ◽  
Special Duty

3. Special duty problems: omissions and acts of third parties

2019 ◽  
pp. 49-59
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Common ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
Special Duty

This chapter discusses the problem of when a duty of care arises in respect of negligent omissions, or for the actions of a third party. The common law takes the view that it would be too great a burden to impose liability upon a person for a mere omission, or for the actions of others. Despite this, duties can in fact be imposed in various ways, all of which focus on the reliance of the claimant upon the defendant. This can come about either by the previous conduct of the defendant, which induces reliance by the claimant that the defendant will continue to act in that way, or by reliance which comes out of a relationship of dependence between the parties. As regards third parties, a duty may arise where the defendant has control over or responsibility for the third party’s actions.

4. Special duty problems: omissions and acts of third parties

Tort Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Special Duty

This chapter examines two separate but closely linked concepts of liability for omissions and for the actions of third parties. The first section considers when and how the courts have found that a duty of care should be owed by defendants when the harm was the result of their omission, and the second explores the situations when a defendant may owe a duty in relation to the action(s) of a third party.

7. Special duty problems: economic loss

2021 ◽  
pp. 188-216
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Economic Losses ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Financial Loss ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
District Council ◽  
Secondary Consequence ◽  
Special Duty

This chapter explains when and how the courts have found that a duty of care should be owed by defendants for purely economic loss. This differs from ‘consequential’ economic loss, where financial loss is suffered as a secondary consequence of another harm, such as personal injury or property damage. The tort of negligence distinguishes between these, using duty of care as a device to control whether and when claimants will be able to recover their pure economic losses. The discussions cover the meaning of ‘pure’ economic loss; exceptions to the exclusionary rule; claims for pure economic loss in negligence before Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990]; and extended applications of the principles established in Hedley Byrne v Heller [1963].

6. Special duty problems: public bodies

2021 ◽  
pp. 138-187
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Services ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Current State ◽  
Public Body ◽  
The Law ◽  
Special Duty ◽  
Public Bodies

This chapter explains what happens when a public body owes a private law duty of care to an individual who claims against it in negligence. It remains the case that public bodies will be liable where the negligent exercise of their powers makes a situation worse than it already was. The discussions cover the general exclusionary rule; the current state of the law; the background to D v East Berkshire [2005]; rules for claims brought against the emergency services (including the police) and armed forces; other types of public body; and new types of claims: education-based claims and ‘social’ claims.

4. Special duty problems: omissions and acts of third parties

Tort Law ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 78-101
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Special Duty

This chapter examines the two separate but closely linked concepts of liability for omissions and for the actions of third parties. The first section considers when and why the courts have established that a duty of care should be owed by defendants when the harm was the result of their omission, and the second explores the situations when a defendant may owe a duty in relation to the action(s) of a third party. Ordinarily you can be liable only for things that you do, but when someone does not do something that they ought to have done a duty might be found. Similarly, while it appears odd that someone may be liable for harms that someone else caused, the courts have nonetheless found that in limited circumstances people who have responsibility for, or control over, others may incur a duty in respect of the harms caused by these third parties.

7. Special duty problems: economic loss

Tort Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
District Council ◽  
Special Duty

This chapter explains when and how the courts have found that a duty of care should be owed by defendants for purely economic loss. The discussions cover the meaning of ‘pure’ economic loss; exceptions to the exclusionary rule; claims for pure economic loss in negligence before Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990]; and extended applications of the principles established in Hedley Byrne v Heller [1963].

6. Special duty problems: public bodies

Tort Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Services ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Current State ◽  
Public Body ◽  
The Law ◽  
Special Duty ◽  
Public Bodies

This chapter explains what happens when a public body owes a private law duty of care to an individual who claims against it in negligence. The discussions cover the general exclusionary rule; the current state of the law; the background to D v East Berkshire; rules for claims brought against the emergency services (including the police) and armed forces; other types of public body; and new types of claims: education-based claims and ‘social’ claims.

3. Special duty problems: omissions and acts of third parties

2021 ◽  
pp. 50-61
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Common ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
Special Duty

This chapter discusses the problem of when a duty of care arises in respect of negligent omissions, or for the actions of a third party. The common law takes the view that it would be too great a burden to impose liability upon a person for a mere omission, or for the actions of others. Despite this, duties can in fact be imposed in various ways, all of which focus on the reliance of the claimant upon the defendant. This can come about either by the previous conduct of the defendant, which induces reliance by the claimant that the defendant will continue to act in that way, or by reliance which comes out of a relationship of dependence between the parties. As regards third parties, a duty may arise where the defendant has control over or responsibility for the third party’s actions.

7. Special duty problems: economic loss

Tort Law ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 186-214
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Economic Losses ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Financial Loss ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
District Council ◽  
Secondary Consequence ◽  
Special Duty

This chapter explains when and how the courts have found that a duty of care should be owed by defendants for purely economic loss. This differs from ‘consequential’ economic loss, where financial loss is suffered as a secondary consequence of another harm, such as personal injury or property damage. The tort of negligence distinguishes between these, using duty of care as a device to control whether and when claimants will be able to recover their pure economic losses. The discussions cover the meaning of ‘pure’ economic loss; exceptions to the exclusionary rule; claims for pure economic loss in negligence before Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990]; and extended applications of the principles established in Hedley Byrne v Heller [1963].

6. Special duty problems: public bodies

Tort Law ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 137-185
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Services ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Current State ◽  
Public Body ◽  
The Law ◽  
Special Duty ◽  
Public Bodies

This chapter explains what happens when a public body owes a private law duty of care to an individual who claims against it in negligence. It remains the case that public bodies will be liable where the negligent exercise of their powers makes a situation worse than it already was. The discussions cover the general exclusionary rule; the current state of the law; the background to D v East Berkshire [2005]; rules for claims brought against the emergency services (including the police) and armed forces; other types of public body; and new types of claims: education-based claims and ‘social’ claims.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document