A duty of care arises when the claimant relies on the defendant’s assumption of responsibility.

A duty of care arises when all three Caparo criteria are satisfied.

A duty of care exists whenever physical harm is reasonably foreseeable.

A duty of care is owed where the defendant’s positive act directly causes foreseeable physical harm to another.

A duty of care arises where the defendant is a police force investigating and suppressing crime. 

Nettleship v Weston (1971)

Blyth v Birmingham Water Works Co (1856)

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) 

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2018)

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957)

The council is not liable because its decision to carry out road maintenance is always a discretionary public function. 

The council is not liable because there is no duty to exercise a statutory power, even negligently. 

The council is not liable because the risk of collision was obvious, and the driver should have taken more care. 

The council is liable because highway authorities owe a general duty to keep all roads reasonably safe for drivers

The council is liable because in failing to replace the sign, it created a new danger. 

Negligence is established if the defendant failed to act as a reasonable person with the defendant's experience and temperament would have done in the same situation. 

The defendant will not be negligent if they could not reasonably foresee harm because they lack the relevant expertise or training. 

The defendant's conduct is measured against what an ordinary prudent person would have done in the circumstances, regardless of their personal skill, motive, or awareness. 

A defendant is negligent if they fail to take precautions that they personally thought were necessary, even if a reasonable person might have thought otherwise. 

A defendant is negligent if, after the event, it becomes clear that they could have prevented the harm by taking greater care. 

Whether the defendant's breach was the most probable cause of the harm. 

Whether the defendant's breach was a necessary condition of the harm. 

Whether the defendant foresaw the way in which the harm occurred? 

Whether the defendant's breach was a sufficient cause of the harm. 

Whether the defendant's breach was the main cause of the harm. 

The Kings are not liable because they took reasonable steps to supervise and could not have prevented the accident. 

The Kings are not liable because they were volunteers rather than professionals. 

The kings are liable because they fail to anticipate that children might somersault or collide. 

The Kings are liable because injury to children is always foreseeable when using a bouncy castle. 

The Kings are liable because strict supervision is required whenever children engage in risky play. 

When a reasonable expert could not have foreseen the precise risk that caused the injury

When they follow a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of professionals.

When they acted honestly and exercised their best professional judgement.

When they follow the majority view of professionals within their field

When they comply with hospital policies and national guidelines relevant at the time

An act because starting to drive was a positive act that created a risk of harm.

An act because the failure to brake forms part of the ongoing act of driving, rather than a separate omission. 

Neither, because the act/omission distinction makes no practical difference once a duty exists. 

An omission because it is a failure to take a positive step (braking) to prevent harm. 

An omission because the driver merely refrained from acting when the law imposes no general duty to act. 

Because the club had not relied on the information in making its decision. 

Because the bank's statement was not made negligently. 

Because banks cannot be sued for negligent misstatement in contract-based dealings. 

Because the bank was entitled to rely on the agent's due diligence. 

Because the bank owed no duty to someone it didn't know and was relying on its statement. 

A housing officer tells a tenant that a fire risk has been dealt with when it has not. 

A police officer tells the victim's mother, "Help is on the way," but never dispatches officers. 

The public authority publishes a leaflet warning of flood risk in the region. 

A doctor advises a patient to stop taking medication, but gives no explanation. 

A passer-by tells a stranded motorist that they will call for help, but fails to do so.