Tortious Liability. By Kiril Ip. Sources of liability. Statutes E.g. Occupiers Liability Ordinance (Cap. 314) Common law - negligence Donoghue v Stevenson A.C. 562. Negligence. In Donoghue, Lord Atkins
By Kiril Ip
A response to the liberal effects of the foreseeability (neighbour) principle, especially as re-formulated in Anns v Merton
Facts: Gov’t Dept’s failure to deregister a deposit-taking company being conducted fraudulently by directors
Q. Does Gov’t Official owe a duty to plaintiffs whose deposits were lost due to the fraud of company directors?
- reasonable foreseeability not sufficient; neighbour principle misunderstood by recent cases; duty also requires ‘proximity’, ie some characteristic in addition to reasonable foreseeability, specially linking plaintiff to defendant, as in Home Office (day-to-day control over third parties)
Facts: Careless police investigation fails to catch serial murderer/rapist
Q. Do police owe duty of care to plaintiff, whose daughter was murdered?
- reasonable foreseeability is not sufficient; duty also requires proximity; some extra characteristic linking defendant and victim lacking here; case distinguished on facts from apparently similar case of Home Office
Facts: Defendant surveyor’s careless survey and advice that ship is safe to sail
Q. Is duty of care owed to owners of goods on the ship?
- no duty owed; not ‘just and reasonable’ to impose duty, having regard to international shipping law, contractual relations, and insurance arrangements
Hill v Chief Constable
Facts: See above
Public policy requires that when conducting investigations of crimes the police be free of worries about being sued; such worries will cause them to be distracted, and if duty owed, police resources will be diverted to defending tort actions; therefore, not in public interest to impose a duty
REAS. FORESEEABILITY OF HARM
(DONOGHUE, DORSET YACHT)
(ie SPECIAL INGREDIENTS)
(YUEN KUN YEU, HILL, MARC RICH)
JUSTICE and REASONABLENESS
(PEABODY, MARC RICH)
(ANNS, HILL, MARC RICH etc)