Study manual

268 
I. A DUTY RECOGNISED BY LAW, REQUIRING CONFORMITY TO A CERTAIN 
STANDARD OF CONDUCT FOR THE PROTECTION OF OTHERS 
Duty of Care 
Negligence is no source of liability unless the law acts a 
"duty" in the circumstances to observe care. A man is entitled 
to be as negligent us he pleases towards the whole world if he 
owes no duty to them: [LE LIEVRE V. GOULD [1893] 1 QB 491, 497 
per Lord Esher, MR]. Duty is an obligation, recognised by law, 
to conform to a particular standard of conduct, for the 
protection of others against unreasonable risks. 
The Duty concept did not attain prominence until the middle of 
the 19th century. Duty was irrevocably established as a 
constituent element of tortious negligence by Brett, MR [Lord 
Esher] in 1882 in the case of HEAVEN Vs PENDER II QBD 503: 
"... the questions which we have to solve in the case are: What 
is the proper definition of the relation but two persons other 
than the relation established by contract, or fraud, which 
imposes on one of them a duty toward the other to observe, with 
regard to the person or properly of such other, such ordinary 
care or skill as may be necessary to prevent injury to his 
person or property; and whether that present case falls within 
such definition. 

---

269 
When two drivers or two ships are approaching each other, such 
relation arises between them when they are approaching each 
other in such LORD ESHER, in LE LIEVRE V. GOULD [1893] 1 QB 491, 
497 had this to say about Duty in tort of Negligence: 
"The question of liability for negligence cannot arise at all 
until it is established that the man who has been negligent OWED 
SOME DUTY TO THE PERSON who seeks to make him liable for his 
negligence ... A man is entitled to be as negligent as he 
pleases towards the whole world if he owes no duty to them". 
We have alluded that the basic problem in the tort of negligence 
is that of limitation of liability. Courts have evolved a 
number of artificial techniques to prevent the incidence of 
liability from getting out of hand. Duty of care is one such 
technique. 
A duty of care issue is an issue of law. 
A duty must arise out of some "relation" (You are alone in 
forest) between the parties, but what that relation is no one 
has ever succeeded in subsuming under any sort of formula. In 
general, a duty of care will be owed wherever in circumstances 
it is foreseeable that if the Defendant does not exercise due 
care, the Plaintiff will be harmed. This foreseeable test was 
laid down by Lord Atkin in the case of DONOGHUE Vs STEVENSON and 
it is known as "neighbour principle". 

---

270 
Determination of DUTY OF CARE must have regard to both to the 
nature of the INTERESTS infringed and the type of conduct 
complained of. Many factors interplay to influence determination 
of DUTY OF CARE: History; Socio-economic change; personal 
morality of judges, etc. All these affect where the loss should 
fall. Therefore the incidence and extent of DUTIES are liable to 
adjustment in the light of the constant shifts and changes in 
society's attitude. 
The concept of duty of CARE is used in fact to limit the range 
of liability to Plaintiffs who are FORESEEABLE. (Plaintiff, 
your "neighbour" must be contemplated!!) This is important to 
ensure that Defendants are not crushed by the burden of 
excessive liability for quite some trivial fault. In Donoghue v. 
Stevenson the "neighbour" foreseeable was the friend who was 
offered a drink. In Grant Vs. Australian Knitting Mills [1936] 
AC 85 foreseeable "neighbour" was the wearer of woollen under 
wear. Always bear in mind that Law of tort is as much about 
liability as is about non-liability. 
The question of SCOPE or RANGE OF FORESEEABILITY to give rise to 
a duty of care was discussed in PALSGRAPH Vs LONG ISLAND R.R. 
(1928) 162 N.E. 99, 59 A.L.R. 1253, where: two train guards, in 
assisting a passenger, carelessly knocked a small parcel from 
the arms of the passenger. The parcel, despite its innocent 
appearance, contained fireworks. An explosion occurred when the 

---

271 
parcel fell beneath a moving train, causing scales some distance 
away to topple on the Plaintiff. The jury decided in favour of 
Plaintiff but it was set aside on the ground that, though they 
[Guards] may have been in breach of duty to the embarking 
passenger because of foreseeable damage at least to his parcel, 
this was of no avail to Mrs. Palsgraf who was beyond the range 
of foreseeable peril. 
Plaintiff is obliged to show that there was a duty owed to him 
in particular. Therefore a pedestrian who suddenly crosses the 
road and is knocked down can not argue that the driver ought to 
have slowed because of presence of toddlers in the area. This 
limitation of liability to "foreseeable Plaintiff is nowadays 
matched by a similar limitation to "foreseeable damage". 
Today, foreseeable plaintiff is always expressed in terms of 
DUTY and foreseeable damage in terms of REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE. 
In the tort of NEGLIGENCE breach of "Duty" is the Chief 
ingredient of the tort. If the Plaintiff is to succeed it must 
be shown first that the circumstances in which his damage was 
caused were capable of giving rise to a duty of care. Secondly 
Plaintiff must show that Defendant actually owed him a duty on 
the particular facts of the case. The duty of care imposed for 
purposes of proving Negligence is essentially LEGAL - ie. it has 
to be seen as a duty in the eyes of law. The duty of care 
envisaged in Negligence is to be distinguished from a 

---

272 
"religious" or "moral duty" - both of which cannot be enforced: 
eg. You are sunbathing on the beach and a child is about to 
drown, you look away and continue reading your newspaper. Here 
the law would not hold you responsible. You will have no duty of 
care in law. Matters would be different if the child were under 
you care and charge. 
Tort of Negligence has always expanded to cover new horizons. 
Lord Atkin's proposition covered squarely manufacturers of food 
articles especially in the cases where the manufacturer: 
"puts up an article of food in a container [sealed tin, or 
sealed bottle] which he knows will be opened by the consumer in 
circumstances where there can be no inspection by any purchaser 
... the manufacturer had a duty of care towards the consumer. 
It should also be noted that even though DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON 
was regarded a landmark case in propounding the principle of the 
duty of care - controversy still persisted on whether the duty 
could extend in other cases of activity