LLB102 Lecture 5: NOVEL DUTIES OF CARE AND NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS FOR PURE PSYCHIATRIC INJURY
WEEK$5!LECTURE:(NOVEL&DUTIES&OF&CARE&AND&NEGLIGENCE&CLAIMS&
FOR$PURE$PSYCHIATRIC$INJURY!
Three%elements%in%negligence:%%
(1) Duty%of%care%
- Established%duties%of%care%%
o Legal%precedent%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
- Novel%duties%of%care%
(2) Breach%of%duty%
(3) Damage%
%
Novel!Duties!of!Care%
%
Arise%when%a%duty%of%care%is%argued%in%a%situation%which:%
- Has%not%previously%been%considered%by%a%court%
- Relationship% between% plaintiff% and% defendant% does% not% fall% within% an% established% duty% of%
care%%
o E.g.%where%you%are%dealing%with%the%liability%of%public%authorities%and%whether%they%
owe%a%duty%of%care%to%someone%=%novel%duty%%
- Is%not%governed%by%a%duty%of%care%prescribed%by%clear%authority%or%precedent%
o Cases%where%the%parties%fall%within%an%established%duty%of%care%relationship,%but%the%
damage% suffered% by% the% plaintiff% is% such% as% to% remove% them% from% the% scope% of% the%
established%duty/%novel%duties%arise%where%the%plaintiff%suffers:%
§ Pure%psychiatric%injury%
§ Pure%economic%loss%
%
Plaintiff%must%prove%that%in%their%particular%circumstances,%a%duty%of%care%was%owed%
%
Historical!Approaches!to!Novel!Duties!!
!
Important%Principles%
%
The%common%law%needs%to%be:%
1. Adaptable%
o Duties%of%care%need%to%be%able%to%develop%and%change%as%society%changes%
o Law%may%change%where%the%society%expectations%should%change%
o May%need%change%because%medicine%and%science%has%developed%
%
As%stated%in%Dovuro&Pty&Ltd&v&Wilkins:%
%
‘If&negligence&law&is&to&serve&any&useful&social&purpose,&it&must&ordinarily&reflect&the&foresight,&reactions&
and&conduct&of&ordinary&members&of&the&community&…’&
%
2. Certain%
- The%methodology%for%determining%novel%duties%of%care%must%be%one%capable%of%application%–%
such%that%lawyers%may%realistically%advise%clients%of%their%rights%(or%lack%of%them!)%
- The%law%needs%to%be%known%so%that%people%can%comply%
- Method%of%novel%duties,%needs%to%be%a%method%that%can%be%applied%
%
%
*Donoghue&v&Stevenson&-%The%Neighbour%Principle:%
%
‘in&English&law&there&must&be,&and&is,&some&general&conception&of&relations&giving&rise&to&a&duty&of&care,&of&
which& the& particular& cases& found& in& the& books& are& but& instances.& & The& liability& for& negligence,& …& is& no&
doubt&based&upon&a&general&public&sentiment&of&moral&wrongdoing&for&which& the&offender& must&pay& …&
You&must&take&reasonable&care&to&avoid&acts&or&omissions&which&you&can&reasonably*foresee* would&be&
likely&to&injure&your&neighbour.&&Who,&then,&in&law&is&my&neighbour?&&The&answer&seems&to&be&–&persons*
who* are* so* closely* and* directly* affected* by* my* act* that& I& ought& reasonably& to& have& them& in&
contemplation& as& being& so& affected& when& I& am& directing& my& mind& to& the& acts& or& omissions& which& are&
called&into&question’:%*Donoghue&v&Stevenson&at%580%(Lord%Atkin)%
- Attempted% to% define% the% basis% of% negligence% liability% (circumstances% in% which% a% duty% of% care%
would%be%owed)%
%
- Two%concepts%relevant%to%the%imposition%of%a%duty%of%care:%
o Was%it% reasonably! foreseeable! that% a% defendant’s% acts% would% cause% harm% to% the%
plaintiff%
o Proximity;% or% whether% there% was% a% close% and% direct% relationship% between% the%
defendant’s%action%and%the%plaintiff’s%harm%
- Don’t%owe%a%duty%of%care%to%anyone,%just%one%within%close%proximity%%
- Prior%to%this%test:%
o Negligence%liability%limited%to%certain%categories%of%case%only%
- After%this%test:%
o Negligence%liability%eventually%expanded%
o Reasonable%foresight%could%not%explain%all%circumstances%in%which%a%duty%of%care%would%
be%owed%
§ Not%suitable%in%cases%involving%omissions,%pure%economic%loss,%psychiatric%injury%
!
The!Two-Stage!Approach:!Anns*v*London*Borough*of*Merton*
!
- Lord%Wilberforce’%
Reasonable%foreseeability%was%a%necessary,%but%not%sufficient,%condition%for%the%existence%
of%a%duty%of%care,%we%also%need%to%consider%of%legal%policy%was%also%relevant%
- Need%to%look%at%social,%moral%and%economic%factors%to%help%argue%either%against%duty%of%care%or%
argue%scope%of%duty%of%care.%
%
In%Anns&v&London&Borough&of&Merton,%
%
Case% of% action% brought%against%the% council% by%the% tenants% of% a% block% of% apartments.% These% tenants%
weren’t%the%original%occupiers%or%owners%of%the%building-%the%building%had%been%sold/%changed%hands%a%
number% of% times.% These% tenants% were% suing% the% council% because% the% building%had% been% built%on%
negligently%constructed%foundations.%The%council%was%responsible%for%inspecting-%they%approved%them%
as%being%sufficient.%The%tenants%claimed%that%the%council%was%negligent%in%doing%so.%%They%claimed%that%
as%a%result,%the%damage%to%the%property%was%interfering%or%affecting%their%health%and%safety.%%
%
In% this% case% an% action% had%been% brought% by% the% tenants%against% the% council;% therefore,% the% House% of%
Lords%adopted%a%two-stage%approach.%They%held%that%‘yes’,%a%duty%of%care%was%owed.%%
%
The%House%of%Lords%two-stage%approach%to%the%determination%of%a%duty%of%care%(Anns&test):%
%
(1) Was%the%harm%reasonably%foreseeable?%
- “Yes”%it%is%reasonably%foreseeable% that% if% you% are%negligent%in%inspecting%or%approving% the%
foundations%of%the%building,%that%some%kind%of%harm%to%the%people%living%in%it%might%occur.%%
&
‘Whether,&as&between&the&alleged&wrongdoer&and&the&person&who&has&&suffered& damage& there& is&
a&sufficient&relationship&of&proximity&or&& neighbourhood& such& that,& in& the& reasonable&
contemplation& of& the& former,& carelessness& on& his& part& may& be& likely& to& cause& damage& to& the&
latter’&
(2) Are%there%any%considerations%‘which%ought%to%negative,%or%to%reduce%or%limit%the%scope%of%the%
duty%or%the%class%of%person%to%whom%it%is%owed%or%the%damages%to%which%a%beach%of%it%may%
give%rise?’:%at%751-2%
- No,% as% a% matter% of% policy% it% shouldn’t% matter% if% you% were% the% original%occupier% or% a%
subsequent%occupier,%a%duty%would%be%owed.%
Proximity!Approach!!
Deane%J%in%Jaensch&v&Coffey%existence%of%a%duty%of%care%required%a%consideration%of%three%things:%%
(1) The%reasonable%foreseeability%of%the%kind%of%harm%suffered%
(2) The%existence%of%a%relationship%of%proximity%between%the%plaintiff%and%defendant%
%
‘Lord&Atkin&did¬&seek&to&identify&the&precise&content&of&the&requirement&of&the&relationship&of&
“proximity”&which&he&identified&as&a&limitation&upon&the&test&of&reasonable&foreseeability&…&It&
involves&the¬ion&of&nearness&or&closeness&and&embraces&physical*proximity&(in&the&sense&of&
space&and&time)&between&the&person&or&property&of&the&plaintiff&and&the&person&or&property&of&
the&defendant,&circumstantial*proximity&such&as&an&overriding&relationship&of&employer&and&
employee& or& of& a& professional& man& and& his& client& and& causal* proximity& in& the& sense& of& the&
closeness&or&directness&of&the&relationship&between&the&particular&act&or&cause&of&action&and&
the&injury&sustained’:%at%584-5%
%
- Three%different%kinds%of%proximity:%physical%(how%physically%close%they%are),%circumstantial%(a%
pre-existing% relationship% i.e.% employer-employee)% and% causal% (directness% between% the%
relationship% of% the% defendants% negligence% and% the% harm%caused% to% the% plaintiff/% connection%
between%the%conduct%and%the%injury%sustained)%%
(3) Any%public%policy%considerations%for%denying%the%existence%of%a%duty%of%care%
o Duty%of%care%not%owed%by%barristers%to%clients%for%in%court%work%(matter%of%policy)%
§ Potential%conflict%between%duty%to%court%and%duty%to%client%
§ Cannot%be%sued%for%doing%in%court%work%
o Duty% of% care% owed% by% a% builder% to% the% subsequent% purchaser% of% a% domestic% dwelling%
(houses)%
%In%Jaensch&v&Coffey,&
Mr% Coffey% came% off% his% motorcycle% after% being% negligently% hit% by% a% car.% Wife% did% not% see% the%
accident%or%attend%the%scene,%but%did%see%her%husband%in%hospital%in%the%post-accident%period.%She%was%
told%that%he%was%in%bad%shape,%next%day%she%rang%the%hospital%and%was%told%that%he%had%taken%a%turn%for%
the% worse% and% was% transferred% to% intensive% care.% Mr% Coffey% survived,% but% his% wife% developed% a%
psychiatric%illness.%In%this%case%Mrs%Coffey%was%suing%the%driver%of%the%car%for%“nervous%shock”%due%to%
what%she%had%seen,%told%and%been%exposed%to%as%a%result%of%her%husband’s%accident.%The%High%Court%held%
that%there%was%a%duty%of%care%owed%to%the%wife.%However,%in%order%to%owe%a%duty%of%care%the%plaintiff%
must% have% “direct% perception% of% the% accident% or% its% immediate% aftermath”;% that% is% psychiatric% injury%
must%occur%due%to%the%plaintiff’s%“direct%perception%of%the%accident%or%its%immediate%aftermath”.%This%
extends!to! Observation% of% the% matter% at% the% actual% place% of% collision,!events% at% the% scene% after% its%
occurrence,! the% ambulance% taking% an% injured% person% to% hospital% and% to% the% hospital% itself% in% that%
immediate%post%accident%period.%In%this%case%as%Mrs%Coffey%attended%the%aftermath-%she%had%visited%her%
husband%in% hospital.% The%court% said% a% duty% of% care% is% owed% to% here% and% said% that% she% had% either%
sufficient%physical%or%causal%proximity%(satisfied%proximity%element%for%a%duty%of%care%to%be%owed).%!
Document Summary
Week 5 lecture: novel duties of care and negligence claims. Three elements in negligence: (1) duty of care. Established duties of care: legal precedent. Novel duties of care (2) breach of duty (3) damage. Arise when a duty of care is argued in a situation which: Has not previously been considered by a court. Plaintiff must prove that in their particular circumstances, a duty of care was owed. As stated in dovuro pty ltd v wilkins: If negligence law is to serve any useful social purpose, it must ordinarily reflect the foresight, reactions and conduct of ordinary members of the community ": certain. The methodology for determining novel duties of care must be one capable of application such that lawyers may realistically advise clients of their rights (or lack of them!) The law needs to be known so that people can comply. Method of novel duties, needs to be a method that can be applied.
