In English law, a duty of care refers to a legal obligation requiring individuals or organisations to act with reasonable care to avoid causing harm to others.
A duty of care arises when harm is reasonably foreseeable, there’s sufficient proximity between parties, and it’s fair, just, and reasonable to impose such a duty. This concept is fundamental to negligence claims in tort law.
The three-stage test from Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990) commonly assesses duty of care:
The “neighbour principle,” established in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), significantly shaped the modern understanding of duty of care, asserting one must reasonably foresee harm to their “neighbours”—those closely affected by their actions.
If a duty of care is established and breached, causing harm or loss, the affected party can claim compensation through negligence litigation.
The duty of care principle underpins accountability and encourages responsible behaviour in various contexts, from professional services to personal interactions.
You may find our more detailed guide on duty of care useful.
A child with a shunt suffered brain damage when a blocked shunt was not diagnosed by telephone. The GP failed to ask specific questions that would have revealed symptoms indicating shunt blockage. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial, finding the trial judge had improperly applied the Bolitho exception without giving parties opportunity to respond.
Parents claimed damages for psychiatric injury after discovering organs had been removed and retained from their deceased children during post-mortems without their knowledge or consent. The court held that while doctors owed a duty of care to explain organ retention possibilities, there is no tort of wrongful interference with a body and only one claimant succeeded in negligence.
The claimant's father was diagnosed with Huntington's Disease while she was pregnant. Despite knowing the diagnosis carried a 50% hereditary risk to her, clinicians respected the father's confidentiality wishes and did not inform her. She later discovered she had the disease and sued, arguing the defendants owed her a duty of care to disclose. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the claim arguable and remitting it for trial.
Council tenants' three children died in a house fire when the mother could not open locked windows with removable keys to escape. The claimants sued alleging negligence in window design. The Court of Appeal (majority) dismissed the appeal, holding that installing commonly-used lockable windows was not negligent, applying the Bolam test.
Mrs Adler was seriously injured while disembarking from the Himalaya. The Court of Appeal held that the ship’s master and boatswain could not rely on an exemption clause in a contract to which they were not parties, reinforcing privity and inspiring the later ‘Himalaya clause’.
Anthony Bland was left in a persistent vegetative state after the Hillsborough disaster with no prospect of recovery. The NHS Trust sought declarations permitting discontinuation of artificial feeding. The House of Lords held that withdrawing life-sustaining treatment was lawful where it no longer benefited the patient, as there was no duty to continue futile medical care.
Following the Hillsborough disaster where 95 people died in a stadium crush, relatives and friends of victims claimed damages for psychiatric illness caused by witnessing the events on television or at the ground. The House of Lords dismissed all appeals, establishing that recovery for nervous shock requires proximity in time, space, and relationship to the primary victim.
Three clients sued their solicitors for negligence in civil litigation matters. The House of Lords was asked whether advocates' immunity from negligence claims should continue. The House unanimously abolished the immunity for civil proceedings, fundamentally changing the law to allow clients to sue negligent advocates.
Two employees died in a gas-filled well after their employer negligently used a petrol-driven pump without adequate warnings. A doctor who attempted to rescue them also died. The Court of Appeal held the employer liable for all three deaths, establishing that rescuers injured while responding to dangers created by negligence can recover damages.
Mrs O’Brien mortgaged the matrimonial home to secure her husband’s company debts after he misrepresented the transaction. The Court of Appeal set the charge aside, holding that Barclays was put on inquiry and had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure her consent was properly obtained.
A child taken into care at 10 months alleged the local authority negligently failed in its duty of care during his upbringing, causing psychiatric illness. The House of Lords allowed the appeal against strike out, holding that claims against local authorities for negligent exercise of child care duties are not automatically non-justiciable and should proceed to trial.
A dental house officer suffered a migraine attack during a career advice meeting. She claimed the interviewer abandoned her on the stairs without calling help. The Court of Appeal allowed her appeal against summary judgment, holding that whether a duty of care existed required factual determination applying Caparo principles.
Water from defendants' fire-plug escaped during an exceptionally severe frost and flooded plaintiff's house. The court held the defendants not negligent as they had taken reasonable precautions against ordinary weather conditions and could not have foreseen the unprecedented frost. This case established the classic definition of negligence.
A pregnant fishwife suffered nervous shock after hearing a motorcycle collision approximately 50 feet away, though she was never in physical danger and saw nothing of the accident itself. The House of Lords held the motorcyclist owed her no duty of care as she was outside the foreseeable area of potential danger.
Duwayne Brooks, present during Stephen Lawrence's racist murder, claimed police owed him duties of care as victim and witness. The House of Lords held that police investigating crime owe no common law duty of care to victims or witnesses that would impede their crime-fighting functions, affirming the Hill principle.
Caparo purchased shares in Fidelity relying on audited accounts prepared by Touche Ross. The accounts were allegedly negligent, overstating profits. Caparo sued the auditors claiming they owed a duty of care. The House of Lords held auditors owe no duty to individual shareholders for investment decisions or to potential investors, only to shareholders collectively for proper corporate governance purposes.
Fire brigades attended fires at various premises. In the Hampshire case, a fire officer negligently turned off sprinklers, causing greater fire damage. The Court of Appeal held fire brigades owe no general duty of care when attending fires, but are liable if their positive acts create or increase danger.
A child under four years old escaped from a nursery school onto a busy street, causing a lorry driver to swerve and fatally crash while avoiding the child. The House of Lords held the local education authority liable for negligently failing to prevent the child's escape, establishing a duty of care owed to highway users.
Mr Chandler contracted asbestosis from exposure to asbestos dust while employed by Cape Products Ltd, a subsidiary of Cape plc. The subsidiary was dissolved and uninsured. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that Cape plc owed a direct duty of care to its subsidiary's employees based on assumption of responsibility, establishing that parent companies can be liable for subsidiaries' employees' health and safety in appropriate circumstances.
A mentally disordered patient sued the health authority for negligence in failing to provide adequate aftercare following his discharge from hospital, claiming this led to him committing manslaughter. The Court of Appeal held his claim was barred by public policy (ex turpi causa) as it was based on his own criminal act, and that the statutory duty under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 did not give rise to a private law duty of care.
Customs & Excise obtained freezing injunctions against two companies with accounts at Barclays Bank. After the bank was notified of the orders, it negligently permitted substantial fund transfers from both accounts. The court held that the bank owed no duty of care to the claimants merely by receiving notice of the freezing injunctions, as proximity required an assumption of responsibility which had not occurred before the transfers.
Lessees of a flat discovered defective plaster caused by negligent sub-contractors employed by the main building contractor. The House of Lords held that the cost of repairing defective work which had not caused personal injury or damage to other property was pure economic loss and not recoverable in tort against the builder.
The Claimant attended A&E after a head injury and was told he would wait 4-5 hours. He left after 19 minutes without being seen by clinical staff and later suffered serious brain injury. The claim against the hospital for negligence by reception staff in providing inaccurate waiting time information was dismissed.
Mr Donoghue, a professional diver, dived into Folkestone Harbour at midnight in mid-winter, struck submerged grid piles, and broke his neck. The Court of Appeal held that the harbour owners owed no duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 as they had no reason to believe anyone would swim there at that time.
Mrs Donoghue found a decomposed snail in her ginger beer, bought by her friend. She suffered illness and successfully sued the manufacturer despite not having directly purchased the product herself. This case laid down the neighbour principle.
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive