|
In English tort law, an individual may owe a duty of care to another, to ensure that they do not suffer any unreasonable harm or loss. If such a duty is found to be breached, a legal liability is imposed upon the tortfeasor to compensate the victim for any losses they incur. The idea of individuals owing strangers a duty of care – where beforehand such duties were only found from contractual arrangements – developed at common law, throughout the 20th century. The doctrine was significantly developed in the case of ''Donoghue v Stevenson'',〔Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562〕 where a woman succeeded in establishing a manufacturer of ginger beer owed her a duty of care, where it had been negligently produced. Following this, the duty concept has expanded into a coherent judicial test, which must be satisfied in order to claim in negligence. Generally, a duty of care arises where one individual or group undertakes an activity which could reasonably harm another, either physically, mentally, or economically. This includes common activities such as driving (where physical injury may occur), as well as specialised activities such as dispensing reliant economic advice (where economic loss may occur). Where an individual has not created a situation which may cause harm, no duty of care exists to warn others of dangerous situations or prevent harm occurring to them; such acts are known as pure omissions, and liability may only arise where a prior special relationship exists to necessitate them. ==Duty of Care== The first element of negligence is the legal duty of care. This concerns the relationship between the defendant and the claimant, which must be such that there is an obligation upon the defendant to take proper care to avoid causing injury to the plaintiff in all the circumstances of the case. There are two ways in which a duty of care may be established: # the defendant and claimant are within one of the recognised relationships where a duty of care is established by precedent; or # outside these relationships, according to the principles developed by case law. The principles delineated in Caparo V Dickman specify a tripartite test: # Was the harm reasonably foreseeable? # Was there a requisite degree of proximity between the claimant and the defendant # Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care; are there precluding public policy concerns? There are a number of distinct and recognisable situations in which the courts recognise the existence of a duty of care. Examples include * one road-user to another * employer to employee * manufacturer to consumer * doctor to patient * solicitor to client * teacher to student 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Duty of care in English law」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|