duty of care

The tort of negligence requires a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, its breach, and damage caused by the breach that is not too remote. In Donoghue v. Stevenson Lord Atkin's “neighbour principle” held that one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions one can reasonably foresee would injure persons so closely and directly affected that one ought to have them in mind. Later English cases added proximity and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty (Caparo, 1990).

Indian courts follow these principles. In Jacob Mathew the Supreme Court held that a doctor owes a duty to use reasonable skill and care, judged by the standard of an ordinary competent practitioner (the Bolam test), and that criminal liability needs gross negligence.

Example

The manufacturer owed the consumer a duty of care under the neighbour principle even though there was no contract between them.

In Indian law

• Donoghue v. Stevenson (House of Lords, 1932)
• Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, 2005 INSC 334

See also

damages · deficiency in service · damnum sine injuria

Read more in the study notes

• Classification of administrative action (Administrative Law)
• Judicial power of the administration: quasi-judicial functions and administrative adjudication (Administrative Law)
• Government contracts and state liability: the administrative-law angle (Administrative Law)
• Promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation and proportionality (Administrative Law)
• Public corporations and public undertakings: status, classification, liability and control (Administrative Law)
• Arbitration agreement and its drafting (Alternative Dispute Resolution Systems)