Analyzing Negligence: Duty of Care & Compensation Case Study

This case study examines a negligence scenario involving Frankie, Geri, and Helen, focusing on the duty of care owed by Ellis, the milk tanker driver. It applies legal principles from landmark cases like Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman, Chadwick v. British Railways Board, and Bourhill v Young to determine whether Ellis was negligent and whether Frankie, Geri, and Helen are entitled to compensation. The analysis concludes that Frankie, who suffered physical injuries, and Helen, who experienced psychological trauma as a rescuer, have valid claims for compensation, while Geri's claim for panic attacks is unlikely to succeed due to the lack of foreseeability. Desklib provides students with access to this and many other solved assignments.

Running head: LAW OF NEGLIGENCE
Law of Negligence
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1LAW OF NEGLIGENCE
Issue:
The issue in this case is that whether there is any right on the part of Frankie, Geri and
Helen against Ellis, the driver of the milk tanker.
Rule:
In order to establish claim under the law of tort, the plaintiff needs to prove that the
defendant was negligent in his action. However, in case of law of negligence, there must be a
duty of care on the part of the defendant. In Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] UKHL
21, it was established by the Court that, in order to prove that there existed duty of care, the
formal requirements needs to be satisfied. These are:
I. The nature of the damage as it could be foreseeable by a reasonable man of prudent
nature.
II. The level of proximity between the parties.
III. Whether it would be justifiable to impose a duty of care.
In the case of Chadwick v. British Railways Board [1967] 2 All ER 9452, it was observed
that, Chadwick being a volunteer helped the victims of train crash. Prior to the incident, he was
normal and active however; after he witnessed such incident he developed psychological
problems. In this case, it was held by the Court that, rescuers should be given compensation in
regard to claims arising out of psychiatric injuries.
1 [1990] UKHL 2.
2 [1967] 2 All ER 945.

2LAW OF NEGLIGENCE
In Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 923, it was observed the defendant was riding his motorcycle
negligently and due to which the plaintiff suffered serious injuries. In this case, the claimant
suffered serious nervous shock and physical injury as a result of negligence on the part of the
defendant. It was held by the Court that the nature of the psychiatric harm was such as it could
not be foreseeable by any reasonable man of prudent nature and therefore the defendant has not
held liable.
Application:
In the present scenario, it can be observed that, Frankie suffered serious physical injuries
as a result of negligent driving on the part of Ellis. In this regard, the case of Caparo Industries
PLC v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2, can be applied in which it was held that in order to prove duty
of care, the nature of the damage must be such which a reasonable man of ordinary prudence
could foresee. In the present case, Ellis can be held liable for h injury as he could reasonably
foresee the nature of the damage.
Similarly, the case Chadwick v. British Railways Board [1967] 2 All ER 945 can be
referred because, it was held by the Court that rescuers shall be compensated in regard to the
claims of psychological injuries. In the present case, Helen rescued Frankie and tried to comfort
him and faced psychological problems by witnessing his condition. Therefore, Helen has a right
to get compensation for the loss.
The case Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92 can be referred because Geri faced panic
attacks as a result of the incident. However, Geri shall not receive compensation as the nature of
the harm was such that it could not be foreseeable by any reasonable man of ordinary prudence.
3 [1943] AC 92.

3LAW OF NEGLIGENCE
Conclusion:
In the conclusion, it can be stated that, Frankie and Helen can claim compensation
however; Geri has no right of compensation.

4LAW OF NEGLIGENCE
References:
Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92.
Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2.
Chadwick v. British Railways Board [1967] 2 All ER 945.