'You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour'
Lord Atkin's definition of neighbour
'persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought to have them in my contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called into question'
Caparo Industries v Dickman
Case which restates the neighbour principle. IN order to establish if a duty of care exists the three points must be considered: 1) Reasonable forgeability of harm 2) Sufficient proximity of relationship 3) Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty
Bourhill v Young
Rule: Bourhill NOT a foreseeable victim, so no DUTY OF CARE Fact: C heard car crash and went to see it. She saw blood on raod and claimed she suffered shock and miscarriage. Def= dead motorcyclist who caused accident.
No proximity of relationship in....
....omissions, PEL, PPH
Marc Rich v Bishop Rock Marine
Rule: not FJR to impose a duty on a non-profit organisation. Nb. third two limbs of Caparo were satisfied.