Duty of care
Duty of care is a fundamental legal principle that establishes a relationship between individuals, highlighting the obligation one party has to avoid causing harm to another. Rooted in tort law, particularly negligence, it asserts that a person must take reasonable care to prevent foreseeable injuries to others. The concept has historical origins dating back to 1768, where it emphasized the need for individuals to consider the potential impact of their actions on their neighbors.
In practical terms, duty of care manifests in various relationships, such as those between doctors and patients, employers and employees, and manufacturers and consumers. The existence of this duty hinges on proximity and the reasonable foreseeability of harm. For claims of negligence to be successful, it must be proven that the defendant breached this duty, resulting in actual harm or loss to the claimant. While the scope of duty of care is expanding, claims related to economic loss or psychological harm face stricter scrutiny, as the connections between parties may be perceived as more tenuous. Overall, the duty of care serves as a vital framework for ensuring accountability and safety in interpersonal interactions.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Duty of care
A duty of care is a unifying concept in law relating to the infringement of a legal right. Tort law, also referred to as “civil wrongs,” involves the suffering of harm, injury, or loss because of another’s wrongdoing. This can result in claims for financial compensation and damages through civil litigation. Central to liability in negligence (carelessness) is whether the defendant has a duty to take care of the injured party. The existence of a duty of care is the primary requirement for a claim to be successful in the tort of negligence. If there is no duty of care, the failure to take reasonable steps to avoid injury or harm to the person cannot give rise to liability.
Overview
Duty of care was first expressed in 1768 in Francis Buller’s Nisi prius, where it was suggested that “every man ought to take reasonable care that he does not injure his neighbor, therefore, wherever man receives hurt through the default of another . . . the law gives him an action to recover for the injury so sustained.”
The duty of care is determined by the relationship between the claimant and the defendant. Certain established duties of care exist: doctor to patient, one highway user to another, manufacturer to consumer, waste handler/carrier to society, and employer to employee. The relationship for which a duty of care may arise is identified through proximity, whereby a person should have the other person in mind when they undertake a certain act.
The criterion for establishing whether a duty of care exists is whether or not the defendant ought reasonably to have foreseen the likelihood of injury to the claimant. It is the responsibility of those owing a duty of care to others to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to avoid harm or injury. In the employer-employee relationship, this means that employers should take all steps reasonably possible to ensure the health, safety, and well-being of their employees.
In duty of care, the harm or injury resulting from an action must be reasonably foreseeable (and therefore capable of mitigating by the person owing the duty of care). In addition, there must be a causal link between the claimant’s injury and the defendant’s breach of his duty of care.
The circumstances in which a duty of care is considered owed are increasing, but claims in negligence remain grounded in the need to demonstrate physical harm, injury, or loss. Where claims have been mounted for pure economic loss or psychiatric harm, the duty of care is less likely to apply because of limits placed on recovery for these kinds of losses. This likelihood is lessened in this case because of the remoteness of the relationship and actions through which such loss may arise and because there may be more appropriate legal avenues available.
Bibliography
DeMott, Deborah A. “Directors’ Duty of Care and the Business Judgment Rule: American Precedents and Australian Choices.” Bond Law Review 4.2 (1992): n.p. Web. 13 Dec. 2013.
Eisenberg, Melvin A. “The Duty of Care in American Corporate Law.” (working paper number 22, Institute for Law and Finance, Frankfurt, 2004).
Girod, Robert J. Police Liability and Risk Management: Torts, Civil Rights, and Employment Law. Boca Raton: CRC, 2014. Print.
Godderis, Rebecca, and Kate Rossiter. "‘If You Have a Soul, You Will Volunteer at Once’: Gendered Expectations of Duty to Care During Pandemics." Sociology Of Health & Illness 35.2 (2013): 304–08. Print.
Hunter, David, and James Salzman. “Negligence in the Air: The Duty of Care in Climate Change Litigation.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 155.6 (2007): 101–54 Print.
Kennedy, Rosemary. Duty of Care in the Human Services: Mishaps, Misdeeds, and the Law. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009. Print.
Lunney, Mark, and Ken Oliphant. Tort Law: Text and Materials. 5th ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2015. Print.
Offer, Avner. “A Warrant for Pain: Caveat Emptor vs. the Duty of Care in American Medicine, c.1970–2010.” Discussion Papers in Economic and Social History. New York: U of Oxford P, 2012. Print.
Rhee, Robert J. “The Tort Foundation of Duty of Care and Business Judgment.” Notre Dame Law Review 88.3 (2013): 1139–198. Print.
Schipani, Cindy A. “The Duty of Care Standard in Corporate Governance: A Comparative Analysis of the U.S. and Australian Experiences.” (working paper 725, University of Michigan, 1993).
White, Edward G. Tort Law in America: An Intellectual History. New York: Oxford UP, 2003. Print.