If the neighbour principle from Donoghue v. Stevenson is applied and a duty is owed under it is it the same thing as when saying a duty is owed in fact?
Also the principle was changed in the Caparo case would this be the test to be applied instead of the Neighbour principle?
dave_eee
not sure I understand the first part of your question but I'll give it a shot... I'll probably be saying stuff you already know, but bear with me...
Donoghue v Stevenson (D v S) introduced the negligence action, saying that a defendant (D) is liable for the damage they cause to the plaintiff (P) by D's negligence. The "neighbour principle" was included in the judgement to limit the number of claims that could be made: P only has an action against D if the two are "neighbours", that is, if D could have reasonably forseen that their actions could have affected P.
I'm not sure what you mean by a duty being owed "in fact". If a duty of care is owed according to Donoghue v stevenson, it's owed as a matter of law, not a matter of fact. The relevant matters of fact would be the circumstances of the case which could bear on whether the duty existed. Eg: the fact that D invited P into their house, knowing there was a hole in the floorboards.
As to the second bit, I dont know the Caparo case personally, but there has been much case law which has built on the D v S case. These cases extend the principles set out in D v S to fit certain fact situations. For example, the Hedley Byrne & Heller case extended D v S to cover negligent advice, rather than only negligent manufacturing.
Without knowing Caparo, I would suggest it simply clarifies the operation of the "neighbour principle" in certain circumstances, but DOESNT ACTUALLY CHANGE THE PRINCIPLE. My Torts lecturer said that in an exam question we should apply cases later than D v S when the facts of that later case match the facts of the case in the exam problem. If there is no such later case that matches, apply D v S because that is the CORE PRINCIPLE.
hope that helped. Message me if I've missed the point
Orignal From: English law: Negligence?
Post a Comment