Question 1 Duty of care can be defined as ‘the lawful duty to prevent causing any harm or injury by taking reasonable care.’ There will be a breach of duty of care owed towards the claimant if there is an act or omission that causes the harm or injury. The neighbour principle is where an individual able to reasonably foresee that his or her actions might cause physical harm or injury to another individual or property of others, thus there will be a duty to take reasonable care in most circumstances (Law & Martin (ed.) 2013, p. 187). In the well-known case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, Lord Atkin developed a principle known as the ‘neighbour principle’ to determine when duty of care might arise. The extent to which a duty of care exists will be subject to the relationship between the parties as well as the different circumstances of the case (Law & Martin (ed.) 2013, p. 188). The courts in Caparo v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 have developed a three tier test to establish the existence of a duty of care. At the earliest formulation of the duty of care concept in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, the elements of foresight as well as proximity were present in the 1932 decision. The plaintiff, Mrs Donoghue, alleged that she and a friend went to a cafe. Her friend had purchased a bottle of ginger beer for her consumption. …show more content…
Therefore, foreseeability along with proximity continues to be the main elements in the duty of care concept today (Steele 2010, p. 148). The significance of this case is that it recognized a general tort of negligence through the judgment of Lord Atkin in particular. Thus, it is not confined to situations of specific duty (Steele 2010, p. 147). Generally Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 is recognized to be initiating the process where a general tort of negligence