Individuals must abide by the ‘neighbor principle’: You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbor. Manufacturer’s liability for defective products: A manufacturer of products, which he sells in such a form as to show that he intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left him with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination, and with the knowledge that the absence of reasonable care in the preparation or putting up of the products will result in an injury to the consumers life or property, owes a duty to the consumer to take reasonable care.

The following test must be applied in novel situations to assess whether a duty of care exists: 1. Is it reasonably foreseeable that the defendant’s actions will affect the claimant? 2. Is there sufficient proximity of relationship? 3. Is it fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty? With regards to a duty of care in cases of negligent misstatements, in assessing whether the defendant has assumed a responsibility towards the claimant, the following should be considered: • Is the defendant aware of the purpose for which the advice was required? • Does the defendant know the information would be communicated to the claimant? (either an individual or ascertainable class) • Does the defendant know that the claimant was likely to act on the advice without independent inquiry? • Did the claimant act on the advice to his detriment?

Police owe a duty to the public at large and not to an individual; it is not appropriate for courts to call into question the discretion of the police into how they conduct their investigation. Cases will be dismissed where the result ‘be a significant diversion of police manpower and attention from their most important function, that of the suppression of crime.’ Brooks v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police No duty of care is owed by Police to individuals (policy reasons)

English courts: The police do not owe a duty of care to individuals (policy reasons). ECHR: A blanket immunity for the police force constituted a breach of article 6, but not article 2 and 8. A positive obligation to prevent death for public authorities may arise where the authority knew, or ought to have known, of the existence of a real and immediate risk to life.

Following Osman v UK, a positive obligation to prevent death arises for public authorities only where the authority knew, or ought to have known, of the existence of a real and immediate risk to life. Where the risk is not sufficiently serious or immediate, no duty of care arises.

The police will owe a duty of care where there is a close proximity between them and an individual, i.e. where that individual is incarcerated. The defense of consent does not apply where the claimant is not of sound mind.

Once police accept information from informants, knowing of its confidential and sensitive nature, they have assumed a responsibility to deal with the information in an appropriate manner and will owe the informants a duty of care.

There is no liability for omissions; no duty is owed to the world East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent and Another If a person decides to act when they have no duty to do so, no duty will be owed unless the situation has been made worse.

Where a person has some sort of power or control over another person or object, they will have a duty to act positively.

A positive duty to act arises where one has assumed responsibility for controlling someone or something.

A positive duty to act does not extend to third parties outside of the defendant’s control; mere foreseeability of some damage occurring is not sufficient basis to find liability, and imposing a positive duty to act may be an intolerable burden to impose in such a case.

Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man… would do, or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man wouldn’t do.

The standard of care is that of a reasonable person; it is an objective test.

Defendant’s conduct should be considered based on the state of knowledge at the time. Lord Denning: “ The court must not look at the 1947 accident with 1954 spectacles.”

A doctor must show the same degree of skill as a reasonable doctor. Where the actions of a doctor are supported by a reasonable body of professional opinion, they will not be considered to have fallen below the standard of care required.