Proximity

Watson v British Boxing Board Ccontrol (1999) CA [Tort negligence - duty of care proximity created by sports regulating body] D (British Boxing Board of Control) failed to provide sufficient medical care at the ringside . C (a famous boxer) suffered severe brain damage following an injury in the ring, but the evidence suggested his injuries would have been less severe had better medical attention been available at the ringside. Held: The sport's controlling body owed a duty of care to those who took part. Injury was foreseeable. The licensing system created proximity, and in all the circumstances it was just, fair and reasonable to impose such a duty. The duty alleged was not a duty to take care to avoid causing personal injury, but rather a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that personal injuries already sustained were properly treated. C won D provide medical treatment near the matches so that brain injury can be relieved.

Causation
Barnett v Chelsea Hospital Management Committee (1969) QBD [Tort negligence - duty of care causation in fact negligence essential - omission can give rise to liability] D, hospital where C went because of stomach pains and vomiting. The doctor refused to examine him and sent him home untreated; he died of arsenic poisoning five hours later. His family sued the hospital. Held: C would probably have died even if the proper treatment had been given promptly , so the hospital's negligence was not the cause of his death. Cs family lost owe a duty of care BUT it was too late for any treatment. So there is no direct relationship between hospital and Cs death.

Foreseeability
Haley v London Electricity Board (1965) HL [Tort negligence - duty of care - to whom owed can be class of person - breach - the vulnerable complainant] D the Electricity Board, whose workmen were preparing to carry out work on underground cables. They dug a hole, and in order to give warning of the danger they laid a long-handled hammer across the pavement. C, a blind man tripped over the hammer and was injured. Held: D was liable they had given adequate warning to sighted people, but it was common knowledge that large numbers of blind people walked unaided along pavements and the duty of care extended to them as well. C won D reasonably foreseen the harm. Public utility-need to foreseen the harm to other category if ppl such as blind ppl, your careless work will harm others

Palsgraf v Long Island Railway Co (1928) New York Appeals [Tort negligence - duty of care to whom owed - foreseeability of damage] D employed a railway worker who tried to help a passenger to get into the train, but carelessly knocked /dropped a box/luggage to the ground. Unknown to him it contained fireworks which exploded on impact ; the blast knocked a weighing machine onto C standing some distance away. Held: injury to C was not reasonably foreseeable from the mere dropping of a box, and D was not liable for Cs injuries. C lost

Modern Approach

Caparo v Dickman (1990) HL ^[Tort negligence - duty of care development proximity foreseeability - 3 stage test] D auditors of company accounts. C, Caparo bought shares and then discovered that the accounts did not show the company had been making a loss. C alleged that in negligence a duty was owed to Caparo. Held: Approving a dictum of Brennan J in the High Court of Australia in Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985), that the law should preferably develop novel categories of negligence and by analogy with established categories, rather than by a massive extension of a prima facie duty of care Steps to establish duty of care are; a) Is there an existing case, which would hold there to be a duty of care? If not then ask three questions. 1. Was loss to the claimant foreseeable? 2. Was there sufficient proximity between the parties? 3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care? Auditors won