ukt-01307/0912 - web viewthe proximate cause exists where the ... negligence and proximate cause....

Vivegavalen Vadi ValuUKT-013070912

1

10 Introduction

Traditionally most torts depend on proof of an intentional and direct interference with the

claimant or with his property In the context of negligence however it revolves around a breach

of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of care required by law thus resulting in

damages or losses to the party who the duty was initially owed1 The modern tort of negligence is

often connoted to the case Donoghue v Stevenson 2 whereby a new course of action was required

for previous approaches simply were no longer applicable or relevant The succinct summary of

the facts of the case is where the claimant argued that she had suffered shock and gastroenteritis

after drinking ginger beer from an opaque bottle out of which a decomposing snail had fallen

when the dregs were poured Two major objections were brought up in the form of lsquocontract

fallacyrsquo whereby a clear precedence rule stated that there can be no duty of care in absence of a

contractual relationship and second that the possibility of a general test for establishing duty of

care be detrimental to commerce3 These objections were effectively overruled as Lord Atkinrsquos in

his judgment laid down five critical elements whereby the basic elements of an action for duty

can be simplified by ensuring first that there was an existence of a duty of care owed by the

defendant to the claimant that there was a specific breach of that duty which then caused

damages or losses to the afflicting party This was to be known as the lsquoneighbour principlersquo 4 an

obiter dictum by Lord Atkin who also stressed that the lack of privity of contract did not prevent

a claim and that negligence should be a separate tort in its own right It is however important to

highlight that only foreseeable harm envisaged by law is applicable to negligence in tort law

1Definition Negligence in Tort Law 22nd March 2013 lthttpwwwcontactlawcoukdefinition-of-negligencehtmlgt2 [1932] AC 562 22nd March 2013 lthttpwwwe-lawresourcescoukDonoghue-v-Stevensonphpgt3 Turner Chris Hodge Sue Unlocking Tort Law 3rd ed Hodder Education Oxon4 Neighbour Principle 22nd March 2013 lthttpwwwlawteachernettort-lawessaysneighbour-principlephpgt


2

20 Development of Law

Throughout the years the tort of negligence saw great development with each passing case

However there were problems when grey areas that were not covered by the neighbour principle

were exploited A new test was created was imposed owing to select cases of proximity of the

relationship between two parties unless there were policy reasons for not doing so The

proximate cause exists where the plaintiff is injured as the result of negligent conduct and

plaintiffs injury must have been a natural and probable result of the negligent conduct In order

for a defendant to be liable the plaintiff must establish both negligence and proximate cause

However note that the law speaks of the defendants conduct as being a proximate cause of an

accident as opposed to the proximate cause5 The case of Anns v Merton London Borough

Council 6 whereby the local authority had failed to ensure that building work complied with the

plans resulting in an inadequate foundation The claimant sued successfully on the grounds that

the damage to property had threatened health and safety Lord Wilberforce in construing the

two-part test stated that first it should be established that there was sufficient proximity between

defendant and claimant for damage to be a foreseeable possibility of any careless act or omission

and second whether or not there were policy considerations that the courts should decide and if

there were any limits to the scope of the duty or remove it altogether7 The problem with the test

was the amount of discretion given to judges to determine if a duty had in fact existed It also

obscures the importance of misfeasance and non-misfeasance graying the line of acting wrongly

and failure to act Lord Keith in Yuen Kun Yeu v AG of Hong Kong [1987] 2 ALL ER 705 is

quoted to say that ldquothe test has been elevated to a degree of importance greater than its meritsrdquo

5 Proximity Cause 23rd March 2013 lt httpwwwexpertlawcomlibrarypersonal_injurynegligencehtmlgt6 [1978] AC 728 March 23rd 2013 lthttpwwwe-lawresourcescoukAnns-v-Merton-London-Borough-Councilphpgt7 Turner Chris Hodge Sue Unlocking Tort Law 3rd ed Hodder Education Oxon


3

The test construed in Anns was later abolished when the case of Caparo v Dickman 8 went up to

the House of Lords The facts of the case were where shareholders made a successful takeover

bid for a company after studying the audited accounts prepared by the defendant They later sued

on the basis of reliance when finding out the accounts were erroneous The House of Lards

rejected the notion and a three-stage test was created whereby firstly it should be considered

whether the consequences of the defendantrsquos behavior were reasonably foreseeable Second that

the court should take into consideration whether there is sufficient proximity between the parties

for a duty to be imposed and finally that the courts question whether or not it is in fact fair just

and reasonable in all the circumstances to impose a duty of care9 In his judgment Lord Bridge

draws a distinct line between reasonable foresight proximity and fairness and reasonableness

The basic requirement of reasonable foresight is that the defendant must have foreseen the risk of

harm at the time he or she is alleged to be negligent The remoteness of damage or causation in

law must be satisfied and while foreseeability of harm is a necessary ingredient of proximity the

two must be distinguished Where physical damage is caused by the defendantrsquos negligence it is

not difficult to establish proximity However there must be a relationship between the primary

victim the closeness in time and space as well as witnessing the event in itself10 This can be

depicted in the case of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 11 where there was insufficient

proximity between the police and the public for duty to be imposed to protect individual

members of the public from specific crimes Finally on the issue of fairness and reasonableness

in Ephraim v Newham London Borough Council [1993] PIQR P156 the courts stated that there

must be a limit to liability and no duty can be imposed unless it is just in all the circumstances

8 [1990] All ER 568 March 23rd 2013 lthttpwwwlawteachernettort-lawessaystort-caparo-v-dickmanphpgt9 Turner Chris Hodge Sue Unlocking Tort Law 3rd ed Hodder Education Oxon10 Proximate Causes 23rd March 2013 lthttpwwwexpertlawcomlibrarypersonal_injurynegligencehtml1gt11 [1988] 2 All ER 238 March 23rd 2013 lthttpwwwe-lawresourcescoukHill-v-Chief-Constable-of-West-Yorkshirephpgt


4

30 The Problem of Policy

The problem posed by policy is a unique one in that the question isnrsquot of the presence of duty but

rather if they should be one at all in the first place In Marc Rich and Co AG v Bishop Rock

Marine Co Ltd [1996] 1 AC 212 HL Lord Steyn drew attention to the fact that since the

decision in Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office 12 has been settled the elements of foreseeability

and proximity as well as considerations of fairness justice and reasonableness are relevant to all

cases of alleged negligence whatever the nature of the harm sustained by the plaintiff Lord

Pearce in the case of Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 is

further quoted to say that ldquohow wide the sphere of the duty of care in negligence is to be laid

depends ultimately upon the courts assessment of the demands of society for protection from the

carelessness of othersrdquo Thus the courts must consider all the circumstances including the

position and role of the alleged tort feasor and any relevant policy considerations before

determining liability in negligence The primary concern is that that in relation to constitutional

considerations the role of the judge is not one of a lawmaker which is rightfully Parliamentrsquos

role but rather an interpreter enforcer and protector of the law A great number of factors may be

considered at a judgersquos discretion when deciding whether or not to impose a duty of care on a

defendant13 Several notable factors include practical considerations whereby the imposing of

vicarious liabilities on companies that can then plan effective policies to avoid said liability

moral considerations as to public perception and acceptance of a lsquogood Samaritan lawrsquo and

protection of professionals who should not be prevented from carrying out their duties by

restrictive rulings14

12 [1970] AC 1004 HL March 24th 2013 lthttpwwwe-lawresourcescoukHome-Office-v-Dorset-Yachtphpgt13 Elliot Catherine Quinn Francis Tort Law 2011 8th ed Pearson Education Limited Essex England14 Turner Chris Hodge Sue Unlocking Tort Law 3rd ed Hodder Education Oxon


5

There is however other notable and distinct factors that judges take prime concern with owing to

its complexity Firstly with reference to loss allocation whether a party is insured plays an

important part in negligence as depicted in the case of Nettleship v Weston 15 when Lord Denning

said ldquomorally the learner-driver is not at fault but legally she is liable to be because she is

insured and the risk should fall on her This is further highlighted in the case of Church of

Latter-Day Saints v Yorkshire Fire Authority [1997] CA as it was pointed out that an individual

can insure himself against fire risk and if he does not then loss should not fall on the community

The message being sent out by the courts as to whether a party is insured and therefore worth

suing leads some commentators to say that to a certain extent tort law is insurance driven

Secondly in relation to both economic loss and liability for nervous shock the courts have

acknowledged the difficulties which might be caused were there no rules to limit potential

liability The statement by the American Judge Cardozo in Ultramares Corporation v Touche 16

succinctly describes this problem when he referred to liability in an indeterminate amount for an

indeterminate time to an indeterminate class Besides that the lsquoFloodgates Argumentrsquo

presented as far back as Victorian Railways Commissioners v Coultas 17 provides us with another

issue whereby the courts were concerned that cases of nervous shock unaccompanied by any

actual physical injury would be extending the liability for negligence into unchartered territory

rendering it limitless The case of Smolden v Whitworth and Nolan 18 also shows us that the

courts will also take into consideration the benefits of imposing a duty for future conduct to

prevent problems when the courts imposed a duty on a rugby referee who failed to properly

control a scrum These policy decisions are thus sometimes referred to as lsquono dutyrsquo situations

15 [1971] 3 WLR 370 March 24th 2013 lthttpwwwe-lawresourcescoukNettleship-v-Westonphpgt16 Johnson E Eric March 24th 2013 ltwwweejlawcommaterialsUltramares_v_Touche_vT08pdfgt17 [1888] UKPC 3 Privy Council March 24th 2013 lt httpwwwbailiiorgukcasesUKPC18881888_3htmlgt18 [1997] PIQR P133 CA 24th March 2013 lt httpwwwlawteachernettort-lawcasesnegligence-duty-casesphpgt


6

40 Negligence Public Policy ndash Liability of Public Authorities (Case Studies)

The first issue looks at public litigators whereby in the case of Arthur Hall v Simons19 the client

brought claims for negligence against their former solicitors The solicitors relied on the

immunity of advocates from suits for negligence and claims were struck out The House of

Lords considered the immunity and thus decided that immunity is not needed to deal with

collateral attacks on criminal and civil decisions immunity is not needed to ensure that

advocates would respect their duty to the court and abolition of the immunity would strengthen

the legal system by exposing isolated acts of incompetence at the Bar for it was no longer in the

public interest to maintain the immunity in favour of advocates20

In retrospect the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was brought up whereby the case of Welsh v

CC of Merseyside21 depicts the plaintiff bringing an action for the negligent failure of the police

and CPS to ensure that the magistrates court was informed that offences for which he had been

bailed had later been taken into consideration by the Crown Court The Crown Proceedings Act

194722 however directed immunity to judicial not administrative functions The CPS had a

general administrative responsibility as prosecutor to keep a court informed as to the state of an

adjourned case or had in practice assumed such a responsibility and had done so in the plaintiffs

case the relationship between the plaintiff and the CPS was sufficiently proximate for the CPS to

owe a duty of care to the plaintiff Thus it was fair just and reasonable for such a duty to exist

19 [2003] 3 WLR 543 March 26th 2013 lt httpwwwe-lawresourcescoukArthur-Hall-v-Simonsphpgt20 Public Policy Cases and Analysis 26th March 2013 lthttpwwwlawteachernettort-lawcasesnegligence-public-policy-casesphpixzz2PZg3KIgtgt21 [1993] QBD 1 All ER 692 March 26th 2013 lt httpswarbcoukwelsh-v-chief-constable-of-merseyside-police-1993gt22 Statutory Legislation Crown Proceedings Act 26th March 2013 lt httpwwwlegislationgovukukpgaGeo610-1144gt


7

Next we observe the liability of police officers in the course of their duties as reflected in the

case of Osman v Ferguson23 where a school teacher harassed a pupil and the police were aware

of this and the teacher told a police officer that the loss of his job was distressing and there was a

danger that he would do something criminally insane He rammed a vehicle in which the boy

was a passenger The police laid information against the teacher for driving without due care and

attention but it was not served The teacher subsequently shot and severely injured the boy and

killed his father As the second plaintiff and his family had been exposed to a risk from the

teacher over and above that of the public there was an arguable case that there was a very close

degree of proximity amounting to a special relationship between the plaintiffrsquos family and the

investigating police officers However the existence of a general duty on the police to suppress

crime did not carry with it liability to individuals for damage caused to them by criminals whom

the police had failed to apprehend when it was possible to do so It would be against public

policy to impose such a duty as it would not promote the observance of a higher standard of care

by the police and would result in the significant diversion of police resources from the

investigation and suppression of crime24

23 [1993] 4 All ER 344 CA March 27th 2013 lt httpwwwe-lawresourcescoukOsman-v-Fergusonphpgt24 Elliot Catherine Quinn Francis Tort Law 2011 8th ed Pearson Education Limited Essex England


8

To depict the matter of local councils the case of Stovin v Wise25 where the highway authority

did not take any action to remove an earth bank on railway land which obstructed a

motorcyclists view leading to an accident Now public authority liable for a negligent omission

to exercise a statutory power only if authority was under a public law duty to consider the

exercise of the power and also under a private law duty to act which gave rise to a compensation

claim for failure to do so On the facts not irrational for the highway authority to decide not to

take any action the public law duty did not give rise to an action in damages It was impossible

to discern a legislative intent that there should be a duty of care in respect of the use of the power

giving rise to a liability to compensate persons injured by the failure to use it The distinction

between policy and operations is an inadequate tool with which to discover whether it is

appropriate to impose a duty of care or not because firstly the distinction is often elusive and

secondly even if the distinction is clear cut it does not follow that there should be a common

law duty of care26

25 [1996] 3 WLR 389 HOL March 27th 2013 lt httpwwwe-lawresourcescoukcasesStovin-v-Wisephpgt26 Elliot Catherine Quinn Francis Tort Law 2011 8th ed Pearson Education Limited Essex England


9

Another given issue is depicted in the case of Kent v Griffiths27 where the plaintiff suffered an

asthma attack and a doctor called an ambulance which did not arrive for 40 minutes although a

record prepared by a member of the crew indicated that it arrived after 22 minutes The judge

found that the record of the ambulances arrival had been falsified that no satisfactory reason had

been given for the delay and that in those circumstances the delay was culpable28 In appropriate

circumstances an ambulance service could owe a duty of care to a member of the public on

whose behalf a 999 call was made if due to carelessness it failed to arrive within a reasonable

time It was therefore appropriate to regard the ambulance service as providing services of the

category provided by hospitals rather than services equivalent to those rendered by the police or

fire service whose primary obligation was to protect the public generally29 Although situations

could arise where there was a conflict between the interests of a particular individual and the

public at large there was no such conflict in the instant case since the plaintiff was the only

member of the public who could have been adversely affected Similarly although different

considerations could apply in a case where the allocation of resources was being attacked in the

instant case there was no question of an ambulance not being available or of a conflict of

priorities In those circumstances the ambulance service having decided to provide an

ambulance was required to justify a failure to attend within a reasonable time Moreover since

there were no circumstances which made it unfair or unreasonable or unjust that liability should

exist there was no reason why there should not be liability if the arrival of the ambulance was

delayed without good reason Thus the acceptance of the call established the duty of care

27 [2000] 2 WLR 1158 CA March 28th 2013 lt httpwwwe-lawresourcescoukKent-v-Griffithsphpgt28 Public Policy Cases and Analysis 28th March 2013 lthttpwwwlawteachernettort-lawcasesnegligence-public-policy-casesphpixzz2PZg3KIgtgt29 Elliot Catherine Quinn Francis Tort Law 2011 8th ed Pearson Education Limited Essex England


10

Finally one of the most contested issues involving public authorities often reflect towards cases

of child abuse The contemporary case of D v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust amp

Others [2003] 2 WLR 58 concerned three linked cases Each case involved accusations of

abusing a child made against a parent by the professionals concerned for the welfare of that child

and in each case the accusations proved to be unfounded D claimed for the acute anxiety and

distress that she suffered as a result of being incorrectly accused of suffering Munchausen

Syndrome by Proxy30 She was not in fact separated from her child but asserted that she suffered

acute anxiety and depression The parents sued for psychiatric harm resulting from unfounded

accusations of child abuse Lord Phillips in presenting his judgment asserted several key points

to consider The first of which whether the decision made had in fact violated Article 631 and

that subsequent actions violated Article 8 (right to respect family and private life) or Article 13

(remedy against state) of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (ECHR) Secondly

whether the precedent law set out in X v Bedfordshire32 had developed since that decision and if

any other recent authority had varied and if not could it be distinguished on the facts and finally

on the matter of duty of care towards parent and child33

30 Case Review and Analysis 1st April 2013 lt httpwwwmjsolcouklibrarycaseschild-abuseeast-berkshire-community-health-nhs-trust-dewsbury-healthcare-nhs-trust-oldham-nhs-trust-2003gt31 European Convention on Human Rights 1950 1st April 2013 lt httpwwwhriorgdocsECHR50htmlgt32 [1995] HL 1st April 2013 lt httpsixthformlawinfo02_casesmod3aaqa_cases_tort_1dutyhtmX amp Others v Bedfordshire County Council (1995) HLgt33 Public Policy Cases and Analysis 1st April 2013 lthttpwwwlawteachernettort-lawcasesnegligence-public-policy-casesphpixzz2PZg3KIgtgt


11

It was thus held that the decision made which denied a duty of care based on the fair just and

reasonable test could not survive the Convention and X v Bedfordshire was overruled In the

context of the Human Rights Act of 199834 the European Court considered the facts of the case

and found that that there had been a breach of Article 8 It further found that the Applicants had

been denied an effective remedy contrary to Article 13 The possibility of applying to the

Ombudsman and to the Secretary of State did not provide the Applicants with any enforceable

right to compensation The European Court then proceeded to award damages on the basis that

the Applicants suffered distress and anxiety and in the case of the first application through

feelings of frustration and injustice The Court of Appeal in its final word said that social

workers were professionals and were expected to exercise a reasonable standard of skill and care

However in this instance the policy consideration did not carry the same weight A duty of care

can sometimes be owed to a child suspected of abuse but it has to be viewed from a case by case

basis but where child abuse is suspected and removing them from the custody of their parents or

legal guardian is justified no duty of care is owed to the parents35

34 Statutory Legislation HRA 1998 1st April 2013 lt httpwwwlegislationgovukukpga199842contentsgt35 Elliot Catherine Quinn Francis Tort Law 2011 8th ed Pearson Education Limited Essex England


12

50 Conclusion

This paper has thus shown the evolution of the law moving forward in practicality from Anns

test to the Caparo test wherein crucially every case is taken as it is basing on its circumstances

in the judgment of Ephraim that it be just and fair To a certain extent the ordinary principle of

negligence does enough to provide for flexibility to ensure an appropriate balance is struck

between the claimant and defendant However in cases the latterrsquos responsibilities might be

affected contrary to public interest the courts play a pivotal role in ensuring the grey line

promotes natural justice The focus should be on eliminating direct application of policy

concerns and instead apply normal principles of tort law It is important to strive for consistency

in outcome to promote certainty in law and proper guidance should be meted out to public

authorities in their specific line of work In conclusion negligence in tort law especially

concerning the liability of public authorities has not affected their ability to perform and while

selected exhortations remain outdated the introduction of the ECHR Convention and the HRA

1998 allows for newer cases to be reviewed accordingly thus keeping to the framework that tort

law originally intended to inhibit and remedy


13

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Definition Negligence in Tort Law 22nd March 2013 httpwwwcontactlawcoukdefinition-of-

negligencehtml

1932] AC 562 22nd March 2013 httpwwwe-lawresourcescoukDonoghue-v-Stevensonphp

Turner Chris Hodge Sue Unlocking Tort Law 3rd ed Hodder Education Oxon

Neighbour Principle 22nd March 2013 lthttpwwwlawteachernettort-lawessaysneighbour-

principlephpgt

Proximity Cause 23rd March 2013 lt

httpwwwexpertlawcomlibrarypersonal_injurynegligencehtmlgt

1978] AC 728 March 23rd 2013 lthttpwwwe-lawresourcescoukAnns-v-Merton-London-

Borough-Councilphpgt

1990] All ER 568 March 23rd 2013 lthttpwwwlawteachernettort-lawessaystort-caparo-v-

dickmanphpgt

[1988] 2 All ER 238 March 23rd 2013 lthttpwwwe-lawresourcescoukHill-v-Chief-

Constable-of-West-Yorkshirephpgt

[1970] AC 1004 HL March 24th 2013 lthttpwwwe-lawresourcescoukHome-Office-v-

Dorset-Yachtphpgt

Elliot Catherine Quinn Francis Tort Law 2011 8th ed Pearson Education Limited Essex

England

[1971] 3 WLR 370 March 24th 2013 lthttpwwwe-lawresourcescoukNettleship-v-

Westonphpgt

Johnson E Eric March 24th 2013

ltwwweejlawcommaterialsUltramares_v_Touche_vT08pdfgt

[1888] UKPC 3 Privy Council March 24th 2013

lthttpwwwbailiiorgukcasesUKPC18881888_3htmlgt

[1997] PIQR P133 CA 24th March 2013 lt httpwwwlawteachernettortlawcasesnegligence-

duty-casesphpgt

[2003] 3 WLR 543 March 26th 2013 lt httpwwwe-lawresourcescoukArthur-Hall-v-

Simonsphpgt


14

Public Policy Cases and Analysis 26th March 2013

lthttpwwwlawteachernettort-lawcasesnegligence-public-policy-casesphpixzz2PZg3KIgtgt

[1993] QBD 1 All ER 692 March 26th 2013 lt httpswarbcoukwelsh-v-chief-constable-of-

merseyside-police-1993gt

Statutory Legislation Crown Proceedings Act 26th March 2013

lthttpwwwlegislationgovukukpgaGeo610-1144gt

1993] 4 All ER 344 CA March 27th 2013 lt httpwwwe-lawresourcescoukOsman-v-

Fergusonphpgt

[1996] 3 WLR 389 HOL March 27th 2013 lt httpwwwe-lawresourcescoukcasesStovin-v-

Wisephpgt

[2000] 2 WLR 1158 CA March 28th 2013 lt httpwwwe-lawresourcescoukKent-v-

Griffithsphpgt

Case Review and Analysis 1st April 2013 lt

httpwwwmjsolcouklibrarycaseschild-abuseeast-berkshire-community-health-nhs-trust-

dewsbury-healthcare-nhs-trust-oldham-nhs-trust-2003gt

European Convention on Human Rights 1950 1st April 2013

lthttpwwwhriorgdocsECHR50htmlgt

[1995] HL 1st April 2013

lthttpsixthformlawinfo02_casesmod3aaqa_cases_tort_1dutyhtmX amp Others v

Bedfordshire County Council (1995) HLgt

Statutory Legislation HRA 1998 1st April 2013 lt

httpwwwlegislationgovukukpga199842contentsgt


2

20 Development of Law

Throughout the years the tort of negligence saw great development with each passing case

However there were problems when grey areas that were not covered by the neighbour principle

were exploited A new test was created was imposed owing to select cases of proximity of the

relationship between two parties unless there were policy reasons for not doing so The

proximate cause exists where the plaintiff is injured as the result of negligent conduct and

plaintiffs injury must have been a natural and probable result of the negligent conduct In order

for a defendant to be liable the plaintiff must establish both negligence and proximate cause

However note that the law speaks of the defendants conduct as being a proximate cause of an

accident as opposed to the proximate cause5 The case of Anns v Merton London Borough

Council 6 whereby the local authority had failed to ensure that building work complied with the

plans resulting in an inadequate foundation The claimant sued successfully on the grounds that

the damage to property had threatened health and safety Lord Wilberforce in construing the

two-part test stated that first it should be established that there was sufficient proximity between

defendant and claimant for damage to be a foreseeable possibility of any careless act or omission

and second whether or not there were policy considerations that the courts should decide and if

there were any limits to the scope of the duty or remove it altogether7 The problem with the test

was the amount of discretion given to judges to determine if a duty had in fact existed It also

obscures the importance of misfeasance and non-misfeasance graying the line of acting wrongly

and failure to act Lord Keith in Yuen Kun Yeu v AG of Hong Kong [1987] 2 ALL ER 705 is

quoted to say that ldquothe test has been elevated to a degree of importance greater than its meritsrdquo

5 Proximity Cause 23rd March 2013 lt httpwwwexpertlawcomlibrarypersonal_injurynegligencehtmlgt6 [1978] AC 728 March 23rd 2013 lthttpwwwe-lawresourcescoukAnns-v-Merton-London-Borough-Councilphpgt7 Turner Chris Hodge Sue Unlocking Tort Law 3rd ed Hodder Education Oxon


3
























4
























5
























6





















7


















8













law duty of care26



9























10


















11

















12

50 Conclusion
















13

BIBLIOGRAPHY


negligencehtml




principlephpgt






dickmanphpgt




Dorset-Yachtphpgt


England


Westonphpgt






duty-casesphpgt


Simonsphpgt


14








Fergusonphpgt


Wisephpgt


Griffithsphpgt






[1995] HL 1st April 2013






3
























4
























5
























6





















7


















8













law duty of care26



9























10


















11

















12

50 Conclusion
















13

BIBLIOGRAPHY


negligencehtml




principlephpgt






dickmanphpgt




Dorset-Yachtphpgt


England


Westonphpgt






duty-casesphpgt


Simonsphpgt


14








Fergusonphpgt


Wisephpgt


Griffithsphpgt






[1995] HL 1st April 2013






4
























5
























6





















7


















8













law duty of care26



9























10


















11

















12

50 Conclusion
















13

BIBLIOGRAPHY


negligencehtml




principlephpgt






dickmanphpgt




Dorset-Yachtphpgt


England


Westonphpgt






duty-casesphpgt


Simonsphpgt


14








Fergusonphpgt


Wisephpgt


Griffithsphpgt






[1995] HL 1st April 2013






5
























6





















7


















8













law duty of care26



9























10


















11

















12

50 Conclusion
















13

BIBLIOGRAPHY


negligencehtml




principlephpgt






dickmanphpgt




Dorset-Yachtphpgt


England


Westonphpgt






duty-casesphpgt


Simonsphpgt


14








Fergusonphpgt


Wisephpgt


Griffithsphpgt






[1995] HL 1st April 2013






6





















7


















8













law duty of care26



9























10


















11

















12

50 Conclusion
















13

BIBLIOGRAPHY


negligencehtml




principlephpgt






dickmanphpgt




Dorset-Yachtphpgt


England


Westonphpgt






duty-casesphpgt


Simonsphpgt


14








Fergusonphpgt


Wisephpgt


Griffithsphpgt






[1995] HL 1st April 2013






7


















8













law duty of care26



9























10


















11

















12

50 Conclusion
















13

BIBLIOGRAPHY


negligencehtml




principlephpgt






dickmanphpgt




Dorset-Yachtphpgt


England


Westonphpgt






duty-casesphpgt


Simonsphpgt


14








Fergusonphpgt


Wisephpgt


Griffithsphpgt






[1995] HL 1st April 2013






8













law duty of care26



9























10


















11

















12

50 Conclusion
















13

BIBLIOGRAPHY


negligencehtml




principlephpgt






dickmanphpgt




Dorset-Yachtphpgt


England


Westonphpgt






duty-casesphpgt


Simonsphpgt


14








Fergusonphpgt


Wisephpgt


Griffithsphpgt






[1995] HL 1st April 2013






9























10


















11

















12

50 Conclusion
















13

BIBLIOGRAPHY


negligencehtml




principlephpgt






dickmanphpgt




Dorset-Yachtphpgt


England


Westonphpgt






duty-casesphpgt


Simonsphpgt


14








Fergusonphpgt


Wisephpgt


Griffithsphpgt






[1995] HL 1st April 2013






10


















11

















12

50 Conclusion
















13

BIBLIOGRAPHY


negligencehtml




principlephpgt






dickmanphpgt




Dorset-Yachtphpgt


England


Westonphpgt






duty-casesphpgt


Simonsphpgt


14








Fergusonphpgt


Wisephpgt


Griffithsphpgt






[1995] HL 1st April 2013






11

















12

50 Conclusion
















13

BIBLIOGRAPHY


negligencehtml




principlephpgt






dickmanphpgt




Dorset-Yachtphpgt


England


Westonphpgt






duty-casesphpgt


Simonsphpgt


14








Fergusonphpgt


Wisephpgt


Griffithsphpgt






[1995] HL 1st April 2013






12

50 Conclusion
















13

BIBLIOGRAPHY


negligencehtml




principlephpgt






dickmanphpgt




Dorset-Yachtphpgt


England


Westonphpgt






duty-casesphpgt


Simonsphpgt


14








Fergusonphpgt


Wisephpgt


Griffithsphpgt






[1995] HL 1st April 2013






13

BIBLIOGRAPHY


negligencehtml




principlephpgt






dickmanphpgt




Dorset-Yachtphpgt


England


Westonphpgt






duty-casesphpgt


Simonsphpgt


14








Fergusonphpgt


Wisephpgt


Griffithsphpgt






[1995] HL 1st April 2013






14








Fergusonphpgt


Wisephpgt


Griffithsphpgt






[1995] HL 1st April 2013





ukt-01307/0912 - web viewthe proximate cause exists where the ... negligence and proximate cause....

Documents