Duty of care: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{g}}The implied duty one has to one’s | {{g}}The implied duty one has to one’s [[neighbour]]s, those to whom [[Donoghue v Stevenson - Case Note|one’s customers give ginger-beer you have sold them]], and those whose [[Rylands v Fletcher - Case Note|adjoining mineshafts are prone to flood should your reservoir leak]]. | ||
The duty of care grew out of the [[common law]] of {{t|negligence}} — principles of law governing relations between those who are not bound by {{t|contract}} — that is to say, randoms — and therefore who do not have any agreed obligations to each other. The law, articulated by Lord Atkin in {{casenote| | The [[duty of care]] grew out of the [[common law]] of {{t|negligence}} — principles of law governing relations between those who are ''not'' bound by {{t|contract}} — that is to say, randoms — and therefore who do not have any agreed obligations to each other. The common law, articulated by Lord Atkin in {{casenote|Donoghue|Stevenson}} is that one does have a basic [[duty of care]] to one’s [[neighbour]] to observe the standard of conduct one might expect of the [[reasonable person]] — at the time of course expressed as the reasonable man, leading the great [[A. P. Herbert]] to muse whether, at law there was such a thing as a [[reasonable woman]]. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
Latest revision as of 19:07, 21 July 2022
|
The implied duty one has to one’s neighbours, those to whom one’s customers give ginger-beer you have sold them, and those whose adjoining mineshafts are prone to flood should your reservoir leak.
The duty of care grew out of the common law of negligence — principles of law governing relations between those who are not bound by contract — that is to say, randoms — and therefore who do not have any agreed obligations to each other. The common law, articulated by Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson is that one does have a basic duty of care to one’s neighbour to observe the standard of conduct one might expect of the reasonable person — at the time of course expressed as the reasonable man, leading the great A. P. Herbert to muse whether, at law there was such a thing as a reasonable woman.