Negligence and Duty of Care: The Impact of Robinson.
- teachlawhub
- 19 hours ago
- 6 min read
In tort law, a claim can be brought under the law of negligence when someone suffers harm because another person has breached their duty of care.
A person who has been injured due to someone else’s negligence can bring a civil claim for compensation. But to win the case, they must prove three key things:
The defendant owed them a duty of care.
The defendant breached that duty.
The breach caused their injury or damage.
In this blog, we’ll look at the first requirement: establishing a duty of care, and how this was clarified in the key case of Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2018).
The Leading Case: Duty of Care - The Test from Robinson
The case of Robinson (2018) involved a woman who was injured during a police arrest that went wrong. The police were trying to arrest a drug dealer, but he resisted, and a struggle broke out. During the struggle, the claimant who was an innocent bystander, was knocked over by the police and injured. She sued the police for negligence.
The Supreme Court confirmed in Robinson that when deciding whether there is a duty of care, it doesn’t always mean applying the old Caparo v Dickman test. Instead, the Supreme Court used the case of Robinson to make it clearer upon how the courts decide if a duty of care exists. They said that a duty of care can be established in one of three ways:
A duty of care can be based on:
1. An already established, existing duty of care or precedent – has this duty of care already been recognised and established by the courts in previous case law?
2. A similar existing duty of care precedent (an analogous duty) – Can an analogy be made to a similar existing duty of care eg Is this case like another case where a duty was found?
3. If it is a novel situation, the courts will use an incremental approach. - If the situation is new, the courts will decide if it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care, using an incremental approach. (based upon the Caparo v Dickman test)
Now let’s explore each of these in further detail.
Established Duties of Care
Many duties of care have already been recognised by courts. These are known as existing precedents, and courts can rely on them without needing to create new rules. Here is a look at some of the existing duties of care that have been established by the courts, remember this is not a complete or exhaustive list.
Doctors and Patients - Bolam v Friern Barnett Hospital Committee
In this case, a patient received electric shock treatment (ECT) for mental illness. He wasn’t told that there was a risk of broken bones, and he suffered a fractured pelvis. The court decided that doctors owe a duty of care to their patients, including giving proper information and treatment.
Manufacturers and Consumers - Donoghue v Stevenson
This famous case involved a woman who drank ginger beer and later found a dead snail in the bottle. She became ill and sued the manufacturer. The court ruled that manufacturers owe a duty of care to their consumers to make sure their products are safe.
Employers and Employees - Paris v Stepney Borough Council
Mr Paris, who was blind in one eye, was working as a mechanic. His employer didn’t provide safety goggles, and he ended up completely blind when a piece of metal went into his good eye. The court found that employers owe a duty of care to their employees to provide a safe working environment, especially when they know about an employee’s vulnerability.
Caterers and Consumers - Bhamra v Dubb
Mr Bhamra had an egg allergy, and the caterers at a Sikh wedding were told about this. Despite this, they served food containing egg, and he suffered a fatal allergic reaction. The court confirmed that chefs and caterers owe a duty of care to consumers / people eating their food, to make sure it’s safe.
Drivers and Pedestrians - Nettleship v Weston
A man agreed to give driving lessons to Mrs Weston, a learner driver. During a lesson, she crashed and injured him. The court ruled that all drivers, including learners, owe a duty of care to other road users.
Police and the Public - Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
This case confirmed that police officers owe a duty of care to the public when their actions directly cause harm. It’s especially important when the police create a danger through their positive actions, such as in this case during an arrest.
Invitor to Invitee - Wells v Cooper
Mr Wells was a tradesman visiting Mr Cooper’s home. As he was leaving, he pulled on the back door and the handle came off, causing him to fall and injure himself. The court said that a person inviting someone into their home owes a duty of care to make sure their property is reasonably safe.
Children Playing - Mullins v Richards
Two 15-year-old girls were playfighting with plastic rulers in school. One ruler snapped and caused an eye injury. The court ruled that children owe a duty of care to one another, but it is judged by what is expected of a child of that age, not an adult.
Occupiers to Visitors - Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme
The owners of a takeaway had a wet floor from customers walking in with rainwater on their shoes. A woman slipped and broke her ankle. However, because the shop had tried to keep the floor safe with slip mats, they weren’t found liable. Still, the court confirmed that occupiers owe a duty of care to their lawful visitors.
Those Providing Public Services and the Public - Hughes v Lord Advocate
In this case, workmen left an open manhole with only a tent and paraffin lamps to warn people. Two young boys explored it, and one was badly burned in an explosion. The court ruled that those providing public services have a duty of care to protect the public from foreseeable dangers.
Professionals and Clients - Caparo v Dickman
The Caparo case involved financial advice. A company gave poor information in their accounts, leading another business to make a bad investment. The court decided that professionals owe a duty of care to their clients, especially where the advice is relied upon.
Similar or Analogous Duties: Finding a Match.
The second element of the Robinson test requires the court to ask, is this situation similar to another case where a duty of care has already been established? This means that the court doesn’t need to create a brand-new rule if a comparable case/duty of care already exists.
For example, the law already says that a car driver owes a duty of care to pedestrians. So if a motorbike rider or a cyclist injures a pedestrian, the court can say a duty of care exists because it’s similar to the duty a car driver owes, they all use the road and need to be careful around people walking. This will then create a duty of care in the current case by drawing an analogy between the case that is currently being heard and the previous case where a similar duty of care was established.
What If There’s No Existing Case? – The Incremental Approach
If the situation is new or unusual, and there’s no similar case, the courts use the incremental approach, as seen in Caparo and confirmed in Robinson. This means they ask if it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care in this situation. They can make this decision by looking at whether
The harm reasonably foreseeable?
If there is a close relationship (proximity) between the people involved?
In summary, the law of negligence is based upon fairness and safety. Thanks to the ruling in Robinson, the courts now have a clear method for deciding whether a duty of care exists. Most duties of care are now already well established, but where new situations arise, the courts take a careful approach to decide whether a new duty should be created.
Click the link below to download the free TeachLaw student activity.
