Duty of Care Essay

Better Essays

Duty of Care: GELERAL
Week 2::Seminar 2
This concept is based on three proof of elements, its ingredients are – A legal Duty of D towards the C to exercise care in such conduct of D as falls within the scope of the duty, Breach of that Duty means failure to come up to the standard required by law & Consequential damage to C which can be attributed to D’s conduct.
Duty of Care General: Duty is the primary control device which allows the courts to keep liability for negligence within what they regard as acceptable limits and the controversies which have centered around the criteria for the exercise of a duty reflect differences of opinion as to the proper ambit of liability for negligence. Before Donoghue v Stevenson, there was no …show more content…

In a decision of Privy Council , Yuen Kun Yeu v AG of Hong Kong, court interpreted the 1st stage of Anns that, proximity of relationship means that there has to be some special relationship and the relationship depends on the reasonable contemplation of the D that his carelessness may harm the C.
What happened in this case, X Company gained their license from the D and cheated C, lots of people lost their money. Here court pointed that there was no special relation between C and D, there was no proximity and thus no Duty. However, it may be said that it is also a policy decision because, the class of people was so large, if court granted a claim then there would be a flood gate of new claims.
Then Comes the case Caparo Industries plc v Dickman: F Company, manufacturers of electrical equipments, was the target of a takeover by Caparo Industries plc. F was not doing well. At this Point Caparo was buying shares of F company the accounts was checked by Dickman. Caparo reached a shareholding of 29.9% of the company, at which point it made a general offer for the remaining shares, as the City Code's rules on takeovers required. But once it had control, Caparo found that F's accounts were in an even worse state than had been revealed by the directors or the auditors. It sued Dickman for negligence in preparing the accounts and sought to recover its losses. This was the

Get Access
Get Access