- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
- Posts
Sir question which I was willing to ask was that for duty of care we apply 3 stage test and one of its stage is
sufficent proximity or relation or neighbor principle exist. But in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police
(1998) judge said that claim failed because they didn’t satisfy the first criteria ie “they must have close
ties of love and affection with the person who suffers injury or death in an accident attributable to negligence”
and the policemen did not have those close ties of love and affection. HOWEVER in other cases we do not consider
close ties of love and affection na, a person owes duty of care even to a legal neighbor who is not his relative and
does not have close ties of love and affection with him. I hope you understand what confusion is in my mind
regarding this.Policemen frequently face situations involving trauma so are no able to claim trauma simply because they are performing duties in accordance with their employment.
The alternative is unconscionable – no Chief of Police would be able to send policemen in to ANY situation in case they may be exposed to a traumatic scene
The case of the Hillsborough disaster was such a situation where the policemen involved in seeking to rescue and save lives were not either related to nor in love and affectionate to the victims – they didn’t know the victims
So their claim must fail
OK
- The topic ‘Duty of care—neighbor’ is closed to new replies.