Business Management Affairs - Coursework Example

95). This element was developed from decisions made by judges in various cases. A duty of care involves taking reasonable care to prevent acts or omissions which are more likely to injure the involved parties. It requires a person to be prudent, cautious, attentive and careful when acting toward others. In other words, one should meet the standard of care in their actions to wards others. a. Foresee ability: This is whether the consequences are reasonably foreseeable. For example in the case of Kent v Griffiths (2000) the damages was held to reasonably foreseeable.

In Topp v London Country Bus Ltd (1993), there was no foresee ability. b. Proximity: This involves the closeness between parties which can be either physically or legal relationships. In the case of Home Office v Dorset Yatch Club (1970), it was held that there was proximity. There was no proximity in the case of Caporo v Dickman (1990). c. Fair, just and reasonable: This determines whether it is fair, reasonable or just to apply duty of care. In the case of Hill v C.C of W. Yorkshire (1988), it was held not to be fair, reasonable and just.

However a duty of care was applied on the fire brigade in the case of Capital v Hampshire County Council (1997). Breach of duty is when the defendant fails to meet the expected standard as determined by the law. If the claimant proved that the defendant owed him a duty of care he should further show that the there was a breach of duty by the defendant. Breach of duty is determined by the degree of risk involved and the seriousness of the harm which can be measured objectively. Where the harm has several possible causes, the claimant should prove beyond reasonable doubt that the negligence of the defendant was the main cause.

This test is well demonstrated by the case of Wilsher v Essex AHA (1988). With a weakness of particular harm, the defendant will be held responsible as illustrated in the case of Smith v Leech