2. Negligence I: Duty of Care

2019 ◽  
pp. 5-32
Author(s):  
Dr Karen Dyer
Keyword(s):  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Essential Information

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses negligence in terms of duty of care. In order to answer questions on this topic, students need to have the following: a general understanding of the tort of negligence; an understanding of the development of duty of care in negligence, in particular the key cases of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562; Anns v Merton LBC [1978] AC 728; Caparo plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605; an understanding of the development of duty of care in specialized aspects of negligence; and understanding of liability for omissions and of public authorities.

Search for Principle - The Government's Liability in Negligence for the Careless Exercise of its Statutory Powers

2000 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 629
Author(s):  
Thomas Geuther
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Special Treatment ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
High Court Of Australia

For many years the English courts have struggled to develop a principled approach for determining when a public authority can owe a duty of care in respect of the exercise of its statutory powers. Initially, public authorities received no special treatment. Then the courts conferred an almost complete immunity on them, requiring public law irrationality to be established before considering whether a duty could arise. The English approach has not been adopted elsewhere in the Commonwealth. The High Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of Canada have developed different tests, and the New Zealand courts, while never explicitly rejecting the English position, have never followed it. This paper argues that a modified version of the Canadian Supreme Court's approach should be adopted in New Zealand. It proposes that irrationality be a precondition to the existence of a duty of care only where policy considerations are proved to have influenced the decisions of a public authority in exercising its statutory powers.

scholarly journals R. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd.: More Restrictions on Public Authority Tort Liability

2012 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 157
Author(s):  
Lewis N. Klar, Q.C.
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Upper Canada ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Regulatory Functions

Since 2001, it has become very difficult for claimants to successfully sue public authorities for their negligent conduct, particularly in relation to their regulatory functions. This primarily has been due to the refined duty of care formula established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Cooper v. Hobart and Edwards v. Law Society of Upper Canada. As a result of their 2011 R. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. decision, the Supreme Court of Canada has restricted even further the ability of private claimants to successfully sue governments for their regulatory failures.

scholarly journals THE NEGLIGENCE LIABILITY OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES FOR OMISSIONS

2019 ◽  
Vol 78 (3) ◽  
pp. 545-569
Author(s):  
Tom Cornford
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common

AbstractIn this article I address the question of whether the omissions principle – the principle that the common law does not impose liability for omissions – applies with the same force in negligence cases involving public authority defendants as in cases involving private defendants. My argument is that the answer depends upon the answer to a prior question: can a duty of care be based upon the public law powers and duties of a public authority? In making my argument, I refute the views both of those who insist that a claim in negligence against a public authority can be rejected purely because it relates to an omission not falling within one of the standard exceptions to the omissions principle and of those who insist that such a claim can succeed while at the same denying that a duty of care can be based on a public authority's public law powers and duties.

4. Duty of Care III:

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Witting
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Definition Of

This chapter considers the liability in negligence of public authorities. It commences by examining typical features of public authorities, including their statutory and public dimensions, so as to allow a definition of the subject matter. It then considers the tests that the courts have implemented to determine whether they can accept jurisdiction to hear a case involving a public authority. Finally, the chapter turns to the application of the three-stage test for duty in cases of public authorities, paying special attention to the issue of policy reasons for excluding a duty of care.

NEGLIGENCE LIABILITY FOR OMISSIONS AND THE POLICE

2016 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 128-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stelios Tofaris ◽  
Sandy Steel
Keyword(s):  
Third Party ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Public Authorities

AbstractThe police do not owe a duty of care to protect victims from the criminal acts of a third party when investigating or suppressing crime save in exceptional circumstances. This is justified as an application of the omissions principle and on several other grounds. The article argues that most of these justifications are unconvincing and it sets outs a positive rationale for the imposition on the police of a duty of care in respect of sufficiently proximate victims of a negligent omission. The scope of this duty can be coherently delimited by re-adjusting the existing framework of negligence liability of public authorities.

5. Duty of care IV: public authorities

2021 ◽  
pp. 112-130
Author(s):  
Christian Witting
Keyword(s):  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Public Authorities

This chapter considers the liability in negligence of public authorities such as government departments and schools. It commences by examining typical features of public authorities, including their statutory and public dimensions. It then considers the tests that courts have used to determine whether they can claim jurisdiction to hear cases involving public authorities—ie, the issue of justiciability. If the court can exercise jurisdiction, then the next issue that arises is the application of the Caparo Industries v Dickman three-stage framework for duty which, in cases of public authorities, requires paying special attention to policy reasons for either recognising or excluding duties of care.

6. Duty of Care: Applications

Tort Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenny Steele
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
Wrongful Birth ◽  
Responsibility Criterion ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter deals with particular applications of the duty of care concept that determine the boundaries of the tort. Various cases on duty of care are examined in terms of recognized categories relating to negligently inflicted psychiatric damage, ‘pure economic loss’, negligence liability of public authorities, and ‘wrongful birth’ associated with failed sterilization operations. The chapter also considers the assumption of responsibility criterion developed from the case of Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964] AC 465, as well as applications of the ‘Caparo approach’ used in establishing whether a duty is owed. Finally, it looks at emerging organizing concepts which appear to span different categories of case law.

13. Mixed-topic Questions

2019 ◽  
pp. 189-206
Author(s):  
Dr Karen Dyer
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Online Resources ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
The Law

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter presents mixed-topic questions on tort law. In order to answer them fully, students are required to blend their knowledge of the law of tort. They will be able to assess their knowledge on: the purpose of the law of tort; negligence — duty of care, breach, causation, economic loss; remedies; and vicarious liability. Each question is accompanied by a diagram answer plan and suggested answers. Tips for getting extra marks and online resources are also provided.

Public authority liability in negligence: the continued search for coherence

Legal Studies ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Bailey
Keyword(s):  
Public Authority ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Good Case ◽  
Statutory Power ◽  
The Law ◽  
Special Rules ◽  
Problematic Area ◽  
Proper Account

The liability of public authorities in negligence continues to be a problematic area of the law. Some of the difficulties have been caused by the adoption by the courts of unnecessary and unworkable tests, in addition to the ordinary principles of the law of negligence. This is normally done to restrict liability, as with the policy–operational dichotomy, and the propositions that no liability can arise in respect of an act that ‘falls within the ambit of a statutory discretion’ or where the matter is non-justiciable. Sometimes the intention seems to be to extend liability, as with the suggestion that, generally, a duty of care may arise where there is an irrational failure to exercise a statutory power. Recent cases have helpfully continued the process of removing these special rules, leaving matters to be dealt with by the ordinary principles of negligence. Those principles enable proper account to be taken of the particular functions and responsibilities of public authorities. However, the cases remain difficult and the outcomes can still give rise to debate and disagreement. Insofar as there is a good case for extending the range of situations in which compensation is available in respect of the careless or unlawful acts of public authorities, it would be better to develop ex gratia schemes and the provision of remedies through ombudsmen than to extend the law of tort.

5. Duty of care IV: public authorities

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Witting
Keyword(s):  
Public Authority ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Public Authorities

This chapter considers the liability in negligence of public authorities. It commences by examining typical features of public authorities, including their statutory and public dimensions. It then considers the tests that courts have used to determine whether they can accept jurisdiction to hear a case involving a public authority. Finally, the chapter turns to the application of the three-stage test for duty in cases of public authorities, paying special attention to policy reasons for excluding duties of care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document