Duty of Care: Historical Development and Landmark Legal Cases Analysis

This essay examines the historical development of the duty of care, a fundamental legal obligation requiring individuals to exercise reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm. It traces the evolution of this concept, beginning with the landmark case of Donoghue v. Stevenson, often referred to as the "Paisley snail case," which established the neighbor principle and the foreseeability and proximity tests. The essay discusses subsequent cases, including Anns v. Merton Borough Council and Junior Books v. Veitchi, which expanded the scope of duty of care, and Murphy v. Brentwood Borough Council, which limited it. The Caparo v. Dickman test, used for professional negligence, is explained, alongside the Alcock test for secondary victims of psychiatric damage. The essay concludes that the application of duty of care should consider the Caparo test, professional negligence, and the assumption of responsibility, with compensation awarded only when these tests are met.

The Historical Developments of Duty of Care
The duty of care refers to a legal obligation which is imposed on every individual
requiring adherence to a standard reasonable care while performing any acts that could
foreseeably fail to protect. For example, the employer is responsible for his employees’ well-
being or a doctor owns duty of care to his patients by treating and advising them. A failure to
take such care can make them be reasonably liable to pay damages to a party who was injured or
suffers loss.
The duty of care cases was not illustrated fact before the 20th century. A claimant had no
overall appreciation of each kind of consequence. The first case of a duty of care to one’s
neighbor was the Donoghue vs. Stevenson. The waiter served Ms. Donoghue a bottle of ginger
beer with a dead snail inside the bottle and she drank it. This case has been referred to as paisley
snail case. The problem at that time was who Ms. Donoghue could sue. Donoghue could not sue
the owner of the café who supplied her the drink. This is because she had not contacted him as
her friend brought her the drink.
She could only sue the manufacturer of her drink, Mr. Stevenson who owns a duty of care
to the consumer. Lord Atkin LJ stated that ''you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or
omissions which you can reasonably foresee would likely to injure your neighbor.” The neighbor
test can be broken down into two main categories: (i) reasonable foresight of harm; and (ii)
proximity. Before the Paisley snail case, liability to claim for physical injury was non-
foreseeable. However, Ms. Donoghue developed some psychological condition by drinking a
noxious substance classified in non-pecuniary losses in tort. At this stage, Is Mr. Donoghue
entitled to compensation?

In the case of Ann vs. Merton Borough Council, Lord Wilberforce gave the opportunity to
expand the duty of care in the tort of negligence. This was done by determining whether the
alleged wrongdoer and the victim had a reasonable proximity relationship. In the case of Junior
Books vs. Veitchi, reasonable proximity relationship between the parties to own duty of care was
proved. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to compensation. However, in some cases, the duty
of care is not approved.
In the case of Murphy vs. Brentwood Borough Council, the duty of care was disapproved
It was stated that the absence of physical injury cannot amount to liability. Therefore, in
Mcloughlin vs. O'Brien, Lord Wilberforce concluded that there is a fundamental difference
between the parties as a result of causing psychiatric injury to the claimant. The Court must
determine whether a party is affected by whom he loved and whether a party is in favor of being
beneficiary.
Caparo vs. Dickman test is concerned with the professional negligence. This test has
given way to a three-stage test which looks at questions of foreseeability, proximity, justice,
fairness, and reasonableness. The Caparo test is only satisfied where a victim is considered to
have a reasonable proximity to a professional negligence action. The Caparo test helps limit the
claimant engaged in a professional negligence action.
The Alcock test/criteria of recoverability for the secondary victims of the psychiatric
damage remain challenging to the application in practice. Courts have since been stretching this
test in sympathy with the claimants. Sometimes the Court ignores the test in some cases. Thus,
there is incongruous alongside unpredictable outcomes. For one to qualify as secondary victim,
the claimant has to: (a) have a relationship of affection and love with the primary victim; (b)

come across event’s “immediate aftermath”; (c) have direct harm perception to the primary
victim; and (d) be of reasonable fortitude.
In conclusion, having a duty of care to someone cannot be acceptable to all circumstances
and will mislead the case. The court should always apply the Caparo test, and professional
negligence and assumption of responsibility criterion before proving a duty of care. The
compensation should only be awarded when the professional negligence claim made meet the
test of assumption of responsibility and Caparo test since the two test is the qualification for duty
of care establishment.