时间：00:00:00
A woman is driving her car along a road when she sees the warning light indicating low engine oil light up. The woman stops the car at the side of the road and turns on the car’s hazard warning lights. A passing motorist (‘the Motorist’) sees the woman’s car and stops to offer his assistance. The Motorist has some spare engine oil and the woman agrees that he should pour some of this into the woman’s car engine. The oil warning light turns off and the woman assumes therefore that the car is fixed. She drives off but within 20 minutes her car engine seizes up, causing considerable damage to the car. A garage carries out the repairs to the woman’s car. She is told that the Motorist has used the wrong type of engine oil and this has caused the engine damage. The woman wishes to bring a claim in negligence against the Motorist. She seeks advice from a solicitor who believes that there are no similar precedents or comparable cases by which to establish whether the Motorist owes the woman a duty of care. The solicitor’s legal advice about what the court will consider is based on this belief.
What legal advice will the solicitor provide about what the court will consider when deciding whether the Motorist owes a duty of care in negligence to the woman?
< 上一页
对/错
下一页 >
When determining whether a duty of care exists in negligence, the court will consider three factors: (1) whether the harm was reasonably foreseeable, (2) whether there was a relationship of proximity between the parties, and (3) whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care. This tripartite test, established in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, guides courts in deciding new cases where no clear precedent exists.
Key Point: The court uses the Caparo test to determine the existence of a duty of care in negligence by assessing foreseeability of harm, proximity of the relationship, and whether imposing a duty is fair, just, and reasonable.
收集问题
用户内容
