# data[].attributes.body
society. 
Duty of care
Duty of care
 As a defendant you can only be sued by a claimant who is owed a duty of care and this can be argued as a strength and a weakness of the principle 'duty of care'. As found in the case of Bourhill v Young, whereby the pregnant claimant witnessed the aftermath of a car accident (caused by negligent driving) and suffered a still birth as a result of the shock, the courts decided that the driver did not have a sufficient relationship with the claimant and therefore no duty of care towards her. The defendant was not found liable. This may be deemed as a disadvantage of duty of care, due to the shock of the driver's negligent driving factually causing the claimant's pain and suffering. The court however stated that she should have been able to have withstand the shock of seeing another individual in such a state (not having a proximate relationship). On the other hand, the principle of only suing a claimant who is owed a duty of care could be seen as an advantage- with a duty of care being defined as  legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. Subsequently a defendant shouldn't be able to be sued against when they owe no duty to someone, not having to consider the impact of their conduct on them.

# data[].attributes.body
factually causing the claimant's pain and suffering. The court however stated that she should have been able to have withstand the shock of seeing another individual in such a state (not having a proximate relationship). On the other hand, the principle of only suing a claimant who is owed a duty of care could be seen as an advantage- with a duty of care being defined as  legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. Subsequently a defendant shouldn't be able to be sued against when they owe no duty to someone, not having to consider the impact of their conduct on them.

# data[].attributes.body
Duty of Care (is based upon the 3 Caparo rules, two of which relate to closeness & the relationship between the parties - proximity and reasonable foresight of damage)
These rules gain justice because...
Proximity is the idea that individuals which have a relationship or closeness owe a duty of care to each other, due to reliance and care for well being. Justice is reached through proximity as individuals who have common ground will respect this and also will be moral by owing a duty of care. 
Reasonable foresight of damage achieves justice as it gives the idea that if the damage was predictable or foreseen, the individuals should owe a duty of care as they could've prevented the damage or warned them. 

breach of duty
breach of duty
the standard is measured differently for professionals so it allows judges to effectively set their own standards
as the standards are not specifically defined, this allows room for standards to be measured according to each case. 
however, it could be seen as a weakness as it means judges themselves measure the standards which could fluctuate between judge to judge. 

# data[].attributes.body
Duty of care
Strength - The 3rd Caparo rule means that for policy reasons it is possible regardless of proximity & reasonable foresight of damage, for a duty of care not be found. A case demonstrating this is Hill v Yorkshire Police whereby Hill was unable to claim as it was decided that it wouldn't be just for the police to owe a duty of care to the victim and the public as a whole as their relationship was not proximate enough.

# data[].attributes.body
Occupiers Liability 1957: Visitors 
Strengths:
- Occupiers have a duty of care for visitors, this provides fairness as occupiers have granted permission for someone to let in e.g Wheat v E Lacon
- Occupiers will have to owe children a higher duty of care this is reasonable as children aren't grown up 
- Treating children differently based on their age ensures fairness as children of different ages vary in levels of maturity, making it reasonable for occupiers as some may assume young children have parents e.g Phipps v Rochester

Weaknesses:
- Occupiers are maybe liable for the damage caused by an independent contractor , why should occupiers have to check a job when they're paying for the independent contractor e.g Woodward v The Major 
- The duty of care is to make the visitor safe, but in some circumstances it could be the visitors fault e.g Wheat v E Lacon instead we could make the premises safe 
- Occupiers owe a duty of care instead of the owners, teenagers and anybody can grant permission. Instead the owners should grant permission as they own the premise and have the money to defend against the claimant. 

# data[].attributes.body
A defendant will only be liable for the damage that has both factually and legally caused: the defendant should have committed the act which caused the tort to be committed, and therefore the injury or damage caused therefore. The defendant should also have legally caused the tort too. This creates justice because it makes sure that the defendant who caused the injury is liable and can award compensation as damages. On the other hand however, it may not create justice, mainly because the defendant may have not factually and legally caused the tort. 

# data[].attributes.body
A defendant will only be liable for the damage that has both factually and legally caused: the defendant should have committed the act which caused the tort to be committed, and therefore the injury or damage caused therefore. The defendant should also have legally caused the tort too. This creates justice because it makes sure that the defendant who caused the injury is liable and can award compensation as damages. On the other hand however, it may not create justice, mainly because the defendant may have not factually and legally caused the tort. 

# data[].attributes.body
a defendant will only be liable for the damage that has only factually caused the damage and not legally caused the damage. a case which represents this is the wagon mound in which workers were told it was okay to keep working along the pier even though there was oil leak but they were reassured they could keep working. Because they kept working a spark lit the oil and burnt the pier and damaged two boats. even though in this case they factually caused the damaged caused they did not legally. the reason that they did not legally cause the damage is because they could not reasonably foresee the damage as they had been reassured by someone of higher stance that it was safe. If this law was not in place then the workers would have been liable for something that they could not foresee and therefore would be unfair and unjust. if however they had been informed that they could not work any longer and continued to do so then they would've have been liable as they would have legally caused the damage.

# data[].attributes.body
a defendant will only be liable for the damage that has only factually caused the damage and not legally caused the damage. a case which represents this is the wagon mound in which workers were told it was okay to keep working along the pier even though there was oil leak but they were reassured they could keep working. Because they kept working a spark lit the oil and burnt the pier and damaged two boats. even though in this case they factually caused the damaged caused they did not legally. the reason that they did not legally cause the damage is because they could not reasonably foresee the damage as they had been reassured by someone of higher stance that it was safe. If this law was not in place then the workers would have been liable for something that they could not foresee and therefore would be unfair and unjust. if however they had been informed that they could not work any longer and continued to do so then they would've have been liable as they would have legally caused the damage.

# data[].attributes.body
if the defendant has factually caused and but not legally caused damage, a claimant has no right of compensation. This is shown in the case of the Wagon Mound where the claimant could not claim because the defendant only factually caused the damage done to the claimant but they never legally caused it because the damage was not reasonably foreseeable. (fire at the wharf)

# data[].attributes.body
- The negligence formula is said to be unfair to the claimants as it places too many obstacles in the way of obtaining compensation for personal injuries.

# data[].attributes.body
If you get injured by someone with no insurance you don't get any money.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Has to be a duty of care owed : this can be unfair as if no one is responsible then cannot claim
2. It can help change the law : it see's that rulings are wrong and updates and changes it towards it.
3. Police do not owe a duty of care : not fair because it means that no matter what happens cannot sue the police for their actions even if it has had a great affect on an individual.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Should the landlord have responsibility for the tenants, say if the tenant causes someone else to have an accident, who should be liable?
2. Difficult to decide who is liable in some circumstances and seems unfair when nobody is liable after a terrible accident has happened.
3. Occupiers may not see that the work has not been done properly but may still be liable for this, hard to pinpoint who is at fault.

# data[].attributes.body
If occupiers are  supposed to owe trespassers a duty of care, are too many claimants losing? Therefore could it be that the courts aren’t following the law? Which would mean that maybe occupiers shouldn’t owe tresspassers a duty of care?

# data[].attributes.body
Occupiers Liability 1957: Visitors
Occupiers Liability 1957: Visitors 

# data[].attributes.body
Weakness - the duty of care to children visitors raises the question of whether occupiers have to owe a higher duty of care to children. In the case against

# data[].attributes.body
Occupiers shouldn't have to owe a duty of care to trespassers as they are not supposed to be on the premises in the first place. Therefore, any damage or personal injury that happens to the trespasser (claimant) should not be able to be claimed for.

# data[].attributes.body
in the case of Radcliffe v McConnell the claimant had been drinking and decided to go a swimming pool which h was enclosed by high walls and was closed for winter and the water levels were low. the gates had been locked and had warnings of low water levels as well. the man dived into the shallow part of the pool and this ended up him being paralysed.

# data[].attributes.body
When a defendant has factually caused but not legally caused damage, meaning a claimant will have no right of compensation, this can be argued both positively and negatively in terms of factual and legal causation. For instance, in the case of the 'Wagon Mound', the fact that the defendant only factually caused the damage to the claimant's wharf and not legally, subsequently meant that the claimant received no compensation. The defendant was not liable. Potentially being argued as unfair and not delivering justice, on the other hand, this may be deemed positively seeing as all claimants have to prove the defendant's actions both factually and legally.

# data[].attributes.body
Occupiers have a duty of care to look after adult visitors to a reasonable standard. They should be aware of danger and special action should be taken to care for children

# data[].attributes.body
Duty of care is not restricted to purely professional relationships. For example in the case of Smith where Mrs Smith (a learner) hit a lamp post which injured Mr Smith. It was argued that if being a learner could be a defence then many traffic collisions may become un-liable and the claimants would be unable to sue for compensation. However some professional relationships may be more significant, like a parental relationship which is not professional but owes a duty of care to their child.

# data[].attributes.body
Weakness - factual causation can be a lottery whereby two individuals could commit/omit the same behaviour and only one is sue-able. It could be argued that the rule gives the least protection to the most vulnerable. The case of Barnett v Kensington Hospital ruled that the defendant wasn't liable because, although under normal circumstances his omission would be an offence, the break in the chain of events proved that the defendant hadn't breached his duty of care. This demonstrates the idea that a special circumstance left the most vulnerable without protection.

# data[].attributes.body
Occupiers have a common duty of care to adult visitors and must take reasonable steps to ensure their safety. Adult visiots are expected to be aware of possible dangers. Occupiers also owe a duty of care to children however it is more than a comon duty of care, and is infacst a special duty of care as children are not expected to be aware of possible dangers and are expected to have an adult with them at all times due to their age. Their are commonly 3 catagories of age groups for children. One being toddlers, another being children and the other being teenagers. There is a rough grouping of age catagories such as; toddlers(2-5), children(5-12) and teenagers(12-17). Although theres a rough grouping there isn't a specific grouping meaning all cases can vary and no specific age rule will apply commonly in all cases/ courts.
Due to there being no age regulations judges can choose what category to put them into and this can be a disadvantage of the system and it could quite possibly mean sometimes it is unjust.

# data[].attributes.body
are the defences such as warnings, contributory negligence and consent enough to achieve justice?

# data[].attributes.body
Factual causation can be a lottery whereby two individuals could commit/omit the same behaviour and only one is sue-able. Does the rule give the least protection to the most vulnerable? For example in the case of Barnett V Kensington where a doctor didn't turn up to a patient who was poisoned. However the patient was not treatable therefore the doctor was not liable. But if the patient was treatable then the doctor would have been liable. Is it fair to base the system on luck?

# data[].attributes.body
Where a defendant has factually caused but not legally caused the damage, a claimant will no right of compensation, however this isnt the case in the case Wagon Mound whereby they factually but not legally caused the damage.

# data[].attributes.body
should occupiers have to owe a duty of care to trespassers?
No, they shouldn't

# data[].attributes.body
if the defendant has factually caused and but not legally caused damage, a claimant has no right of compensation. This is shown in the case of the Wagon Mound where the claimant could not claim because the defendant only factually caused the damage done to the claimant but they never legally caused it because the damage was not reasonably foreseeable. (fire at the wharf)

# data[].attributes.body
Professionals are generally only able to rely on practices accepted by their colleagues.

# data[].attributes.body
Occupiers owe a higher duty of care for children as they are vulnerable and more susceptible to allurements on a occupiers premises which is created by the occupier.
However this may create a defence for children wondering into areas they are warned against.

# data[].attributes.body
Strength - The 3rd Caparo rule means that for policy reasons it is possible regardless of proximity & reasonable foresight of damage, for a duty of care not be found. A case demonstrating this is Hill v Yorkshire Police whereby Hill was unable to claim as it was decided that it wouldn't be just for the police to owe a duty of care to the victim and the public as a whole as their relationship was not proximate enough.

# data[].attributes.headline
Intervening causes break the chain of causation and end potential liability (Factual and Legal Causation

# data[].attributes.subject
Intervening causes break the chain of causation and end potential liability (Factual and Legal Causation

# data[].attributes.body
The defendant is unable to predict the following outcome after a accident therefore if it makes the situation worse you shouldn't be liable.

# data[].attributes.body
As a defendant you can only be sued by a claimant who is owed a duty of care.
In the case of Bourhill v Young the claimant had a stillborn when she saw the blood at the scene of a road accident but she couldn't sue the defendant as she wasn't owed a duty of care.

# data[].attributes.body
We should owe a duty of care to trespassers as common duty of humanity to avoid occupiers harming anyone without permission on their land.
However this may encourage people to trespass as there are less consequences for their actions.

# data[].attributes.body
Achieves Justice because of the fact that the standard of care is objective.
An objective standard means that recovery can generally be expected for foreseeable damage.

# data[].attributes.body
By lord Kenning

# data[].attributes.body
Occupiers Liability Act 1984 protects trespassers.
An occupier owes a duty of care when the “occupier is aware of the danger, or has reasonable grounds to believe it exist, knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the trespasser is near or may come to be near the danger and the risk is one which an occupier may reasonably be expected to protect visitors from".
Child trespassers are treated as though they are visitors if they are drawn to a specific area by an allurement and the occupier has not made a reasonable attempt to stop this happening (e.g. locking it away).

# data[].attributes.body
should occupiers have to make the premises reasonably safe.
this means that the not only the visitors would be reasonably safe but so would trespassers which raises the question of justice and whether occupiers should have to make trespassers reasonably safe.

# data[].attributes.body
Strengths:
- Occupiers have a duty of care for visitors, this provides fairness as occupiers have granted permission for someone to let in e.g Wheat v E Lacon
- Occupiers will have to owe children a higher duty of care this is reasonable as children aren't grown up
- Treating children differently based on their age ensures fairness as children of different ages vary in levels of maturity, making it reasonable for occupiers as some may assume young children have parents e.g Phipps v Rochester

Weaknesses:
- Occupiers are maybe liable for the damage caused by an independent contractor , why should occupiers have to check a job when they're paying for the independent contractor e.g Woodward v The Major
- The duty of care is to make the visitor safe, but in some circumstances it could be the visitors fault e.g Wheat v E Lacon instead we could make the premises safe
- Occupiers owe a duty of care instead of the owners, teenagers and anybody can grant permission. Instead the owners should grant permission as they own the premise and have the money to defend against the claimant.

# data[].attributes.body
Strength - Duty of care is based upon the 3 Caparo rules, two of which relate to closeness and the relationship between the parties

# data[].attributes.body
Changes the law- Recognising well-established principle is wrong e.g Bolam: doctors omission to warn patient of purposed treatment constituted as a breach of liability
Establishes a duty of care- through Capro test: decides whether fair/ just/ reasonable to impose (e.g George healthcare NHS trust and others 2015) means held liable and justice for claimant.

# data[].attributes.body
where a defendant has factually caused but not legally caused damage, a claimant will have no right of compensation.
E.G. Re v Wagonmound
this is where the defendants factually caused the fire but did not legally cause the fire due to the experts telling the defendants that it would be safe to carry out the job.

# data[].attributes.body
Weakness- A defendant is only liable for damage that has been both factually and legally caused. Although this means the defendant wont be unfairly treated and the same rule will apply to any case involving damages. This can be unfair to the claimant as if the defendant has factually caused damage but not legal;ly caused damaged he will be liable. Thus meaning the claimant isn't able to claim for compensation.

# data[].attributes.body
Children aged 5 and younger would always be considered in a case as though they were with an adult. Children aged 5-11 are those who should be protected most as they have the ability to be away from parents (Perry v Butlins 1997), but also the most likely to follow an allurement into a premises, any age older than 11 would be seen as having the ability to make informed decisions about their safety, though there are exceptions (Jolley v LB of Sutton 2000). Though the extent of this reasonable thought would depend on the maturity and intelligence of the child. For example a child aged 15 would not necessarily have the same mindset and sense of reasonableness as a child who is 17 (Titchener v British Railways Board 1983)

# data[].attributes.headline
Duty of Care (is based upon the 3 Caparo rules, two of which relate to closeness & the relationship between the parties - proximity and reasonable foresight of damage)

# data[].attributes.subject
Duty of Care (is based upon the 3 Caparo rules, two of which relate to closeness & the relationship between the parties - proximity and reasonable foresight of damage)

# data[].attributes.body
These rules gain justice because...
Proximity is the idea that individuals which have a relationship or closeness owe a duty of care to each other, due to reliance and care for well being. Justice is reached through proximity as individuals who have common ground will respect this and also will be moral by owing a duty of care.
Reasonable foresight of damage achieves justice as it gives the idea that if the damage was predictable or foreseen, the individuals should owe a duty of care as they could've prevented the damage or warned them.

# data[].attributes.body
the standard is measured differently for professionals so it allows judges to effectively set their own standards
as the standards are not specifically defined, this allows room for standards to be measured according to each case.
however, it could be seen as a weakness as it means judges themselves measure the standards which could fluctuate between judge to judge.

# data[].attributes.body
a defendant will only be liable for the damage that has only factually caused the damage and not legally caused the damage. a case which represents this is the wagon mound in which workers were told it was okay to keep working along the pier even though there was oil leak but they were reassured they could keep working. Because they kept working a spark lit the oil and burnt the pier and damaged two boats. even though in this case they factually caused the damaged caused they did not legally. the reason that they did not legally cause the damage is because they could not reasonably foresee the damage as they had been reassured by someone of higher stance that it was safe. If this law was not in place then the workers would have been liable for something that they could not foresee and therefore would be unfair and unjust. if however they had been informed that they could not work any longer and continued to do so then they would've have been liable as they would have legally caused the damage.

# data[].attributes.body
Duty of care
Leila
As a defendant, you can only be sued by a claimant who is owed a duty of care for example (Bourhill V Young) in this case a women saw a road accident where she saw lots of blood and suffered such shock it resulted in her having a still born baby. However it was held that the defendant did not owe her a duty of care. This is a disadvantage as it resulted in her losing her baby and she wasn't able to receive any compensation. A counter argument to this would be that it means that the defendants family couldn't be sued as he didn't owe her a duty of care. the defendants family also suffered a tragic loss.

# data[].attributes.body
A defendant will only be liable for the damage that has both factually and legally caused: the defendant should have committed the act which caused the tort to be committed, and therefore the injury or damage caused therefore. The defendant should also have legally caused the tort too. This creates justice because it makes sure that the defendant who caused the injury is liable and can award compensation as damages. On the other hand however, it may not create justice, mainly because the defendant may have not factually and legally caused the tort.

# data[].attributes.body
ken
Duty of Care
Duty of Care
duty of care is not restricted to purely professionals 
Duty of care
Duty of care
Occupiers Liability
Occupiers Liability 
Visitors: 5
Visitors: 5
Children aged 5 and younger would always be considered in a case as though they were with an adult. Children aged 5-11 are those who should be 
Breach of Duty - Strength

# data[].attributes.body
A defendant will only be liable for damage that has both factually and legally caused:

# data[].attributes.body
Factual and legal causation is both required to ensure a fair system, however this can create cases like the wagon mound where the defendant can curve around a duty.

# data[].attributes.body
Visitors come under the Occupiers Liabilities Act 1957 and have many strengths and weaknesses. One strength includes that we should treat children differently in consideration of their ages. Children are different through ages including a 4 year old who has less intelligence and less responsibility than a 17 year old which knows what responsibility they take and the impact of their actions. As we treat child with different ages, its shows the law takes account into difference between ages and increases justice and fairness within the occupiers liability. Futhermore, we make the child of that age reasonably safe and with the occurrence of children (5-11) being with adults whatever the situation.

On the other hand we move into Trespassers and the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 where Trespassers occur when no permission is giving on that occupiers permission (claimant). Within the act, the occupier has the duty of common humanity and this is very subjective. What does common humanity critically mean? This phrase in very inaccurate and can be argued in court that the defendant had little knowledge of what that meant. Within Trespassers, Occupiers should have the common humanity instead of making them reasonably safe. I think that as trespassers shouldn't be present where they are in the first place and it shouldn't be the occupiers problem to make illegal trespassers safe as they don't have knowledge when they arrive and depart.

Potential weaknesses of the system to achieve justice is that the cost and delay are major. With the cost, it comes come paying a lawyer to produce their court speech for you and the court itself costs approximately £10000 a day to hire. This is very costly and many couldn't afford this expense. The delay can also be months and years resulting in the case not being sorted out therefore the dispute remains. The time waiting for the court case hearing, confrontation between the parties might occur leading to unneeded or unwanted conflict. Furthermore, no relationship is maintained and more anger between the 2 parties increase making the situation worse.

Duty of Care is also a major part of negligence and came from the neighbouring principle and Caparos test with the 3 rules;
- Was the harm reasonably foreseeable?
-Was there a relationship or any proximity?
-Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care
With the case Hill v Yorkshire Police, The defendant was found not liable and just shows injustice within the law. They weren't liable due to tailgating and stopping more claims coming in sueing the police.

# data[].attributes.body
Reasonableness can be altered by the claimant's characteristics an the benefit to society.

# data[].attributes.body
As a defendant you can only be sued by a claimant who is owed a duty of care and this can be argued as a strength and a weakness of the principle 'duty of care'. As found in the case of Bourhill v Young, whereby the pregnant claimant witnessed the aftermath of a car accident (caused by negligent driving) and suffered a still birth as a result of the shock, the courts decided that the driver did not have a sufficient relationship with the claimant and therefore no duty of care towards her. The defendant was not found liable. This may be deemed as a disadvantage of duty of care, due to the shock of the driver's negligent driving factually causing the claimant's pain and suffering. The court however stated that she should have been able to have withstand the shock of seeing another individual in such a state (not having a proximate relationship). On the other hand, the principle of only suing a claimant who is owed a duty of care could be seen as an advantage- with a duty of care being defined as  legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. Subsequently a defendant shouldn't be able to be sued against when they owe no duty to someone, not having to consider the impact of their conduct on them.