Standard of Care in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Anns v Merton London Borough Council
    • House of Lords
    • 12 May 1977

    First one has to ask whether, as between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has suffered damage there is a sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood such that, in the reasonable contemplation of the former, carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage to the latter—in which case a prima facie duty of care arises.

    But this duty, heavily operational though it may be, is still a duty arising under the statute. There may be a discretionary element in its exercise—discretionary as to the time and manner of inspection, and the techniques to be used. A plaintiff complaining of negligence must prove, the burden being on him, that action taken was not within the limits of a discretion bona fide exercised, before he can begin to rely upon a common law duty of care.

    Nature of the damages recoverable and arising of the cause of action. Subject always to adequate proof of causation, these damages may include damages for personal injury and damage to property. In my opinion they may also include damage to the dwelling-house itself; for the whole purpose of the byelaws in requiring foundations to be of certain standard is to prevent damage arising from weakness of the foundations which is certain to endanger the health or safety of occupants.

  • Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
    • House of Lords
    • 28 April 1988

    In some instances the imposition of liability may lead to the exercise of a function being carried on in a detrimentally defensive frame of mind. A great deal of police time, trouble and expense might be expected to have to be put into the preparation of the defence to the action and the attendance of witnesses at the trial. The result would be a significant diversion of police manpower and attention from their most important function, that of the suppression of crime.

  • Glasgow Corporation v Muir
    • House of Lords
    • 16 April 1943

    The Court must be careful to place itself in the position of the person charged with the duty and to consider what he or she should have reasonably anticipated as a natural and probable consequence of neglect, and not to give undue weight to the fact that a distressing accident has happened, or that witnesses, in the witness box, are prone to express regret, ex post facto, that they did not take some step, which it is now realised would definitely have prevented the accident.

  • M'Alister or Donoghue (Pauper) v Stevenson
    • House of Lords
    • 26 May 1932

    You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.

  • Gouldbourn v Balkan Holidays Ltd and Another
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 16 March 2010

    It is a mistake to seek to construe the judgment of Phillips J as if it was a statute: see the observations of Richards LJ in Evans v Kosmar Villa Holidays PLC [2008] 1 WLR 297 at para 224 page 3068 to the effect that the case did not purport to be an exhaustive statement of the duty of care.

See all results
Legislation
  • Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016
    • Wales
    • January 01, 2016
    ... ... (d) the requirements of- ... (i) any regulations under section 27 (including any requirements as to the standard of care and support that must be provided), and ... (ii) any other enactment which appears to the Welsh Ministers to be relevant, ... will be ... ...
  • Children and Families Act 2014
    • UK Non-devolved
    • January 01, 2014
    ... ... 2014/889, art. 5(b) ... 8: Contact: children in care of local authorities ... (1) Section 34 of the Children Act 1989 ... on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale ... Annotations: Commencement Information # I12 S. 51 in force at ... ...
  • Compensation Act 2006
    • UK Non-devolved
    • January 01, 2006
  • Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012
    • UK Non-devolved
    • January 01, 2012
    ... ... (2) It is the duty of the consumer to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation to the insurer ... (3) A failure by the ... (3) The standard of care required is that of a reasonable consumer: but this is subject to ... ...
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Forms
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT