Negligence - Exceptions: control, assumption of responsibility, creation or adoption of risk

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising from the use of the content on this page. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Overview

In negligence law, recognizing exceptions to the general omission rule is vital for SQE1 FLK1 exam success. This article examines three major exceptions: control, assumption of responsibility, and creation or adoption of risk. These concepts help determine when inaction may lead to liability, a complex area of tort law often tested in advanced legal exams.

Control: Managing the Conduct of Others

The control exception applies when an individual has authority over another, thereby holding a duty to prevent foreseeable harm. This principle acknowledges that certain roles or relationships carry both power and responsibility.

Key Elements of Control

  1. Authority over the person or situation causing harm
  2. Predictability of potential harm
  3. Closeness between the controlling party and those at risk

Case Law: Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970] AC 1004

This significant case determined that if someone has control over another who poses a risk, they may have a duty to take reasonable care to prevent harm. The Home Office was found liable when officers failed to supervise trainees, resulting in property damage.

Application in Various Contexts

  • Educational institutions: Schools may be required to prevent bullying (Bradford-Smart v West Sussex County Council [2002] EWCA Civ 7)
  • Law enforcement: Police may need to protect known crime targets (Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] UKSC 2)
  • Healthcare: Mental health professionals might have duties to protect potential victims from dangerous patients

Limitations

  • Control must be direct and strong
  • Obligations must be fair, just, and reasonable
  • Courts are cautious about imposing duties that cause defensive practices or undue burdens on public bodies

Assumption of Responsibility: Voluntary Undertakings

Assumption of responsibility arises when one voluntarily commits to safeguard another's interests, creating a duty of care where none might exist otherwise.

Key Elements

  1. Voluntary commitment by the defendant
  2. Reasonable reliance by the claimant
  3. Harm suffered by the claimant due to reliance

Case Law: Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465

This case established the principle of assuming responsibility, initially concerning negligent misstatements. Its application has extended to various scenarios involving reliance and voluntary commitments.

Scope and Application

  • Professional advice: Duties owed by professionals to third parties relying on their skills (Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605)
  • Emergency situations: Duties accepted by those helping in emergencies (Kent v Griffiths [2000] 2 WLR 1158)
  • Public authorities: Responsibilities assumed through actions or communication (Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council [2006] UKHL 33)

Limitations

  • The assumption must be clear and unambiguous
  • The duty is limited to specific commitments made
  • Determining reasonable reliance can be complex and fact-dependent

Creation or Adoption of Risk: Active Engagement with Danger

This exception occurs when a party creates a risky situation or takes responsibility for an existing risk, leading to a duty to minimize potential harm.

Key Elements

  1. Active creation or knowing acceptance of risk
  2. Predictability of harm
  3. Closeness between the risk creator and potential victims

Case Law: Goldman v Hargrave [1967] 1 AC 645

The Privy Council ruled that a landowner aware of a danger on their property, even if not created by them, may have a duty to address it.

Practical Applications

  • Environmental hazards: Landowners' liability for known risks (Leakey v National Trust [1980] QB 485)
  • Product liability: Manufacturers' duties for inherently dangerous products (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562)
  • Public spaces: Local authorities' responsibilities for hazards in controlled areas (Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] UKHL 15)

Challenges in Application

  • Distinguishing between non-action and culpable risk adoption
  • Balancing duty extent against practicality and cost of risk reduction
  • Deciding when awareness of a risk requires action

The Caparo Test and Omissions

The Caparo test, from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, offers a framework for determining duty of care in omission cases:

  1. Predictability: Was harm a reasonably predictable result of inaction?
  2. Closeness: Was there a sufficiently close relationship between the parties?
  3. Fairness, justice, and reasonableness: Would imposing a duty be equitable considering circumstances and public policy?

Application to Exceptions

  • Control cases: Examination of authority degree and relationship nature (Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11)
  • Assumption of responsibility: Distinction between mere statements and actionable commitments (Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank plc [2006] UKHL 28)
  • Risk creation/adoption: Assessing whether engagement with risks warrants duty imposition (Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] UKHL 47)

Balancing Act

  • Weighing public policy considerations, especially for public authorities
  • Considering the potential for burdensome duties against protecting vulnerable individuals
  • Evaluating broader effects on societal behavior and risk management

Conclusion

Understanding exceptions to the no-duty rule in negligence—control, assumption of responsibility, and risk creation or adoption—is vital for SQE1 FLK1 exam success. These principles capture the careful balance in English tort law between personal freedom and societal duties. Candidates must be ready to:

  1. Analyze detailed factual scenarios
  2. Apply relevant case law
  3. Weigh policy effects when addressing these exceptions
  4. Comprehend how these principles interact with the Caparo test

By developing proficiency with these exceptions and their applications, aspiring solicitors will be well-prepared to handle the complex field of negligence law in both academic and professional settings.