Learning Outcomes
This article explains the concept of established duties of care within the tort of negligence. You will learn to identify key relationships where a duty is automatically recognised, understand the core 'neighbour principle', and distinguish these situations from novel duty scenarios for the SQE1 assessment. This knowledge enables the application of duty of care principles to specific fact patterns in multiple-choice questions.
SQE1 Syllabus
For SQE1, it is essential to recognise situations where a duty of care is already established by law, avoiding the need to apply the full Caparo test used for novel duties. You should focus on applying the relevant principles to factual scenarios typical of the assessment.
Pay particular attention in your revision to:
- Identifying relationships that give rise to an established duty of care (e.g., doctor-patient, employer-employee).
- Understanding the scope and application of the 'neighbour principle' from Donoghue v Stevenson.
- Distinguishing established duty scenarios from novel duty scenarios where the Caparo test applies.
- Applying the concept of foreseeability within established duty contexts.
Test Your Knowledge
Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.
-
Which of the following relationships automatically gives rise to an established duty of care in negligence?
- Shopkeeper and customer browsing items
- Two strangers meeting on a train platform
- Employer and employee regarding workplace safety
- Neighbour and neighbour regarding noise levels
-
The 'neighbour principle', establishing a general duty of care based on reasonable foreseeability, originates from which landmark case?
- Caparo Industries plc v Dickman
- Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd
- Donoghue v Stevenson
- Rylands v Fletcher
-
True or false? When an established duty of care exists, a claimant must still satisfy the full three-stage Caparo test (foreseeability, proximity, fair/just/reasonable) to succeed in negligence.
Introduction
To succeed in a claim for the tort of negligence, a claimant must first establish that the defendant owed them a legal duty of care. This duty requires individuals to exercise reasonable care to avoid causing harm to others. The law recognises certain relationships and situations where such a duty automatically exists without needing detailed judicial analysis in every new case. These are known as established duty situations.
Key Term: negligence A breach of a legal duty of care owed by one party to another, resulting in damage to the claimant.
Key Term: duty of care The legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid causing foreseeable harm to another person.
These established duties often stem from the 'neighbour principle' famously articulated in Donoghue v Stevenson, which requires taking reasonable care to avoid foreseeable injury to those closely and directly affected by one's actions. This contrasts with 'novel' duty situations, where the courts apply the more detailed three-stage test from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman to determine if a duty should be imposed. For SQE1, understanding the scope and application of established duties is critical for analysing common negligence scenarios.
Key Term: neighbour principle The principle that one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions foreseeably likely to injure those closely and directly affected by one's actions.
Established Duty Situations
Case law has identified numerous relationships where a duty of care is automatically recognised. Proving the existence of such a relationship is sufficient to establish the duty element of negligence; the claimant does not need to satisfy the Caparo test in these instances.
Road Users
Drivers of vehicles owe a duty of care to other road users, including other drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and cyclists. This duty requires drivers to exercise reasonable care and skill to avoid causing injury or damage.
Worked Example 1.1
Ahmed is driving along a main road when Priya, a pedestrian, steps out from behind a parked bus without looking. Ahmed is driving within the speed limit and paying attention but cannot avoid hitting Priya, causing her minor injuries. Does Ahmed owe Priya a duty of care?
Answer: Yes. Road users owe an established duty of care to other road users, including pedestrians. The existence of the duty is automatic in this relationship. Whether Ahmed breached that duty or whether Priya was contributorily negligent are separate issues relating to breach and defences.
Employers and Employees
Employers owe a duty of care to their employees to take reasonable steps to ensure their safety at work. This established duty covers providing:
- Competent staff
- Adequate plant and equipment
- A safe system of work (including training and supervision)
- A safe place of work
This duty is personal and non-delegable, meaning the employer remains responsible even if tasks are delegated to others, including independent contractors.
Worked Example 1.2
A factory worker, Ben, is injured when a machine malfunctions due to a hidden defect. The machine was supplied by the employer, Factory Ltd. Does Factory Ltd owe Ben a duty of care regarding the machine's safety?
Answer: Yes. Employers owe an established duty of care to their employees to provide safe plant and equipment and a safe system of work. This duty exists regardless of whether the defect was obvious or hidden, although proving breach might depend on foreseeability and reasonableness.
Healthcare Professionals and Patients
Doctors, dentists, nurses, and other healthcare professionals owe a duty of care to their patients. This involves exercising the skill and care expected of a reasonably competent professional in their field (Bolam test, as refined by Bolitho). The duty encompasses diagnosis, advice, and treatment.
Manufacturers and Consumers
Manufacturers owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumers of their products to take reasonable care in the design and manufacture process to ensure products are safe for their intended use (Donoghue v Stevenson 'narrow rule'). This duty exists independently of any contractual relationship. (Note: Liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 operates alongside this common law duty).
Educators and Students
Teachers and educational institutions owe a duty of care to their pupils/students to take reasonable steps to ensure their safety while under the school's supervision. The required standard of care reflects the age and maturity of the students.
Other Established Duties (Briefly)
Other relationships typically giving rise to an established duty include:
- Solicitor and client
- Occupier and lawful visitor (governed by the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957)
Distinguishing from Novel Duties
It is essential for the SQE1 assessment to differentiate established duty situations from novel ones. If a recognised relationship exists (like those listed above), the duty is established, and the analysis moves to breach and causation. The three-stage Caparo test (foreseeability, proximity, fair/just/reasonable) is reserved for situations where the law has not previously recognised a duty of care between parties in those specific circumstances. Applying the Caparo test unnecessarily to an established duty situation is a common error.
Key Point Checklist
This article has covered the following key knowledge points:
- Negligence requires the claimant to establish a duty of care owed by the defendant.
- Established duties of care exist in certain recognised relationships (e.g., road users, doctor-patient, employer-employee, manufacturer-consumer).
- The 'neighbour principle' from Donoghue v Stevenson is the basis for many established duties, based on reasonable foreseeability.
- Where an established duty exists, the claimant does not need to prove the three elements of the Caparo test (foreseeability, proximity, fair/just/reasonable), which is primarily for novel duty situations.
- Recognising these established duty categories is essential for applying negligence principles in SQE1 scenarios.
Key Terms and Concepts
- negligence
- duty of care
- neighbour principle
