Duty of Care: Legal Obligations, Negligence, and Case Law Analysis

This case study comprehensively examines the legal principle of duty of care within the framework of negligence law, highlighting its significance in determining liability for harm caused to others. It discusses key elements such as reasonable foreseeability, knowledge of risk, and vulnerability, referencing landmark cases like Donoghue v Stevenson and Anns v Merton London Borough Council to illustrate different approaches and tests for establishing a breach of duty. A detailed analysis of the Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan case provides a practical application of these principles, demonstrating the complexities involved in proving negligence and the defenses available to defendants. The study emphasizes the importance of establishing causation and considering factors such as contributory negligence and the defendant's prudential actions in assessing liability. Desklib provides students access to a wide array of solved assignments and study resources.

Running head: DUTY OF CARE
Duty of care and its various approaches
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note

1DUTY OF CARE
Table of Contents
Introduction:...............................................................................................................................2
Discussion..................................................................................................................................2
What is negligence?...............................................................................................................2
What is duty of care?..............................................................................................................3
Case brief: Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540:.........................6
Facts:..................................................................................................................................6
Issues:.................................................................................................................................6
Observation:.......................................................................................................................7
Conclusion:................................................................................................................................7
Reference....................................................................................................................................9

2DUTY OF CARE
Introduction:
The present case is based on the duty of care, which is a part of the negligence law. Duty of
care is a legal duty that has been imposed on the people to take reasonable care against
others. According to the basic principle of law, if any person has failed to act reasonably and
failed to take proper care and by this, the other person has faced any harm, the accused or the
wrongdoer will be liable to compensate the victim. However, there are different approaches
to understand various aspects of duty of care. Before a person has held liable for breaching
the duty of care, certain elements like reasonable foresee-ability, knowledge of the risk and
vulnerability of the accused are required to be analysed. According to the principle of law, if
those elements are not proved, no one will be held liable for breaching duty of care. In
Australia, duty of care is treated as a part of the Tort Law.
Discussion:
What is negligence?
Negligence is an act that shows the failure to implement ethical care in certain circumstances.
Negligence is a part of Tort Law and it is based on the principle of reasonable care1. The
concepts and elements of negligence have been established in the case of Donoghue v
Stevenson [1932] AC 562. According to this case, there are four elements required to be
proved in case of negligence which are as follows:
 Every person has a duty of care against others;
 The wrongdoer has breached the duty;
 Such breach has caused harm to the others;
1 Stickley, A. P. (2016). Australian torts law. 5th ed. LexisNexis Butterworths.

3DUTY OF CARE
 The nature of the damage is not remote.
Duty of care is an important fact to establish the negligent act by the wrongdoer. In Vaughan
v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing N.C. 467, it has been observed that the defendant should have the
knowledge of risk and he should have failed to take necessary steps to prevent the risk and
thus committed breach of duty. Further, it has been held that the risk should be foreseeable
and all the damages have been caused due to the wrongful acts of the defendant. The
causation in case of negligence could be factual or legal in nature. But for test is an important
source in this case; however the High Court of Australia has excluded the test from the
exclusive test of causation.
What is duty of care?
It is the duty of every individual to act as a prudent person. It means he should have to do an
act with reasonable care. He is restricted to perform any duty that could be harmful for any
person. This mentality has given birth to the principle of duty of care. It can be imposed
either by legal operation or by common law. In the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC
562, it has been held that if any person has failed to observe the reasonable foresight of harm
and certain personal injury and property damages have been caused due to his unreasonable
act, the person will be held liable under the breach of duty of care2. In this case, Lord Atkin
has conducted “neighbour test” that could measure the effect of duty of care. Certain
relationship of proximity has also been established in this case. Further, it has been observed
in the case of Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004 that if any allegation has
been made against any person on the grounds of breaching duty of care, his failure to
foresight the reasonable care is required to be established. In case of Perre v Apand [1999]
2 Chan, G. K. Y. (2016). Finding common law duty of care from statutory duties: All
within the Anns framework. Tort Law Review, 24(1), 14.

4DUTY OF CARE
HCA 36, it has been observed by the High Court of Australia that before accusing someone
for breach of duty of care, it is required to be determined whether the plaintiff has owed a
duty of care or not. In Safeway Stores v Zaluzna [1987] HCA 7, the court has rightly
observed that certain duties are imposed on the person automatically3. According to the case,
if any person has bought any property, he will owe duty of care against all the people who
will enter into their property. However, the provision of duty of care should not amount to
any unreasonable burden on any individual. According to the provision of the Civil Liability
Act 2002 [NSW], there are certain special rules to establish the liability of duty of care where
the wrongdoer is from public authority. The rules can be categorised as follows:
 In case of duty of care, the types of harm suffered by the victim is required to be
adjudged;
 The vulnerability of the plaintiff is required to be determined and the liability of the
defendant in such case should be analysed (Chan, 2016);
 It is to be determined whether the defendant has acted like a prudent man or not and
whether the defendant has foreseen the matter or not;
 The relationship nature between the plaintiff and the defendant is required to be
analysed;
 The grounds of ethical and moral consideration should also be determined;
 Consistency regarding the legal principles is required to be established.
All the factors are inter-related with each other. If any one of the factors is established, it is
difficult to state that duty of care has been breached4. If the risk is insignificant in nature, the
3 Civil Liability Act 2002 [NSW]
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
4

5DUTY OF CARE
provision of reasonable foresee-ability could not be proved. Further, according to the Civil
Liability Act 2002, there are three essential elements that should be proved by the victim to
strengthen the case under duty of care such as:
 The defendant or the wrongdoer has the knowledge of risks;
 The nature of the risk is not insignificant;
 The defendant has failed to take reasonable precautions regarding the risk.
In the significant case of Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728, the court
has mentioned two stage test to determine the liability of the defendant. According to this
case, it is required to be determine whether the loss is foreseeable or not and whether the
defendant has made any reasonable steps to prevent the risk or not5.
Further examination has been made in this case and certain incremental approach has been
come into light. Caparo test is one of such examination. This principle has been established in
the case of Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, where certain duties have
been imposed on the victim which he should have to establish. They are as follows:
 reasonable harm;
 proximity relationship;
 reasonable grounds for the imposition of duty of care
Causation is an important element of duty of care. It is a part of the negligenc3e and
according to this principle, the harm should be caused by the wrongful act of the defendant
and the plaintiff should have no knowledge regarding the risk or the damage caused
5 Lawson, G., & Seidman, G. I. (2017). By Any Other Name: Rational Basis Inquiry
and the Federal Government's Fiduciary Duty of Care. Fla. L. Rev., 69, 1385.

6DUTY OF CARE
(Stickley, 2016). If it has been observed that both the plaintiff and the defendant have the
knowledge that any harm could be resulted, the provision of duty of care for the part of the
defendant could not be established (Lawson & Seidman, 2017). There are certain defences
that are available to the defendant to defend his post. The principle of contributory negligence
is such a defence. Additional importance has also been imposed in the Civil Liability Act
2002 by recommending the element as mandatory to establish the occurrence of harm. In
addition to this, the prudential nature of the defendant to tackle the situational risk is required
to be adjudged. There are certain cases where it can be seen that the defendant has taken
various steps at the time of such risk, but even after the plaintiff has suffered from certain
damage or loss. According to the wide analysis, the defendant in such cases is free from the
liability of duty of care. Such principle has been established in the historical case of Graham
Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540 that are required to be discussed and
quite important for the case6.
Case brief: Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540:
The case is essential in nature and it helps to understand all the aspects of the duty of care.
According to the legal facts, there are certain grounds that would like to establish in this case.
More liability has been imposed on the plaintiff to establish the case that defendant has not
made any prudent steps to prevent the risks and the plaintiff has suffered losses due to this.
Facts:
According to the facts of the case, Graham Barclay has been held liable for deliver
contaminated oysters to the distributors and that caused serious illness to the plaintiffs (Mr.
Ryan & Others). Considering the allegation of Mr. Ryan, the company and the state authority
have failed to determine the risky factors of the oyster cultivation in the flooded area and they
6 Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540

7DUTY OF CARE
have failed to make all the reasonable steps to deliver the oysters to the distributors7. This has
caused outbreak of Hepatitis A to the oyster consumers and caused damage to them. At the
very inception, the Federal Court of Australia has held the company and the state authority
liable for the acts. Later on, the company has appealed before the High Court, Australia.
Issues:
Certain issues have been made before the court which is as under:
 Whether the company and the state authority has failed to take proper reasonable care
in cultivating oysters or not;
 Whether the company and the state authority has distributed contaminated oysters
after knowing all the possible risks or not.
Observation:
The court, after examining all the facts and issues of the case, observed certain things. It has
been observed that the company has made effective examination in the flooded area and no
risk of viral contamination has been come into their knowledge. Further, it has been observed
that the company has not harvested oysters due to the rainy season and even after the flood,
the company has not started to cultivate oysters immediately. The company has no
knowledge of risk regarding the contagious nature of Hepatitis A8. Additionally, the company
has sent the entire oyster to the laboratory to check the E-Coli bacteria and analysed its
negative and positive outcomes. After that, the harvested oysters have been depurated by
7 Foley, M., & Christensen, M. (2016). Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case
Study Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1).
8 Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728

8DUTY OF CARE
clean water and the same was sterilized by ultraviolet radiation and diagnosed with Hepatitis
A. Therefore, it can be observed that the company has taken all the possible steps to avoid the
risks of Hepatitis A.
Further, the court has observed that State Council has no liability to protect the oyster
consumers. The acts of the council have attracted the provision of the government regulation
and there are no such hints that point out the harmful nature of the company and the state
council. It has thereby been observed by the court that the company has not breached the
provision of duty of care and is not liable accordingly.
Conclusion:
It is therefore, be stated that duty of care is an important thing in case of negligence and there
are various approaches present to establish the allegation. It is further been stated that all the
elements of the duty of care is required to be maintained properly to establish the case. The
provision of causation and breach of duty are necessary and the victim or plaintiff has to
show that the defendant has failed to maintain all the reasonable steps to avoid the risks9.
According to the provision of the case judgment of Graham Oyster v Ryan, the plaintiff has
alleged that the company has failed to take reasonable steps and for that the plaintiff has been
suffered from Hepatitis A by digesting contaminated oyster. However, after considering all
the facts of the case, High Court of Australia has held that the company has made reasonable
steps to avoid the risk and therefore, the allegation of duty of care could not be established
and the company is not liable thereby.
9 Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605

9DUTY OF CARE
Reference:
Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728
Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
Chan, G. K. Y. (2016). Finding common law duty of care from statutory duties: All within
the Anns framework. Tort Law Review, 24(1), 14.
Civil Liability Act 2002 [NSW]
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Foley, M., & Christensen, M. (2016). Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study
Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1).
Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004
Lawson, G., & Seidman, G. I. (2017). By Any Other Name: Rational Basis Inquiry and the
Federal Government's Fiduciary Duty of Care. Fla. L. Rev., 69, 1385.
Roy, A., & Marsoof, A. (2016). Negligent omissions as a basis for holding online hosts liable
for infringements of trade mark rights: an Australian perspective. 5(2), 99-104
Stickley, A. P. (2016). Australian torts law. 5th ed. LexisNexis Butterworths.

10DUTY OF CARE