Establishing Duty of Care in Novel Cases

In novel duty of care negligence cases, where no pre-existing duty relationship exists, courts apply the Caparo Industries v Dickman test. This three-part test determines whether a duty of care should be imposed:

1. Reasonable foreseeability of harm
2. Proximity between parties
3. Fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty

Example: In Ahmed's case against Bilal, all three elements of the Caparo test are satisfied:

• It was reasonably foreseeable that injury could occur from carelessly opening a car door
• Both parties were in close proximity as road users
• Imposing a duty is fair and doesn't risk opening floodgates of litigation

Vocabulary: Novel duty of care refers to situations where the relationship between parties has not previously been recognized as giving rise to a legal duty.

The document emphasizes that for established duty of care relationships like parent-child or doctor-patient, a duty is automatically owed. In truly novel circumstances, judges may reason by analogy or apply the Caparo test.

Quote: "If it is not an pre-existing duty it was suggested in Robinson v CC of WY that judges should reason by analogy."

Breach of Duty and the Reasonable Person Test

Once a duty of care is established, the next step is determining if that duty was breached. This involves applying the reasonable person test in tort law.

Key points on breach of duty:

1. The defendant's actions are compared to those of a hypothetical reasonable person competent in the same activity.
2. Magnitude of risk can affect the standard of care expected.
3. Only practical precautions are required.

Example: Bilal likely breached his duty of care by failing to check his mirrors or look over his shoulder before opening his car door, as a reasonable driver would have taken these precautions.

Definition: The reasonable person test is a legal standard used to determine if a person's actions were negligent by comparing them to what a hypothetical reasonable person would have done in the same situation.

The document notes that higher risks may increase the expected standard of care, as seen in Miller v Jackson. Additionally, defendants are only expected to take practical precautions, as illustrated in Latimer v AEV.

Highlight: The standard of care expected can vary based on the specific circumstances and level of risk involved in a situation.