Business Law Essay

Holly Park School

In determining whether Holly Park School can be liable for Sam’s injury and his economic loss it must be first determined whether or not Holly Park School owed a duty of care to Sam. The case with Joe’s Bakery is very similar to Sam’s precedent. However, Joe’s bakery’s damage is physical, but its loss is purely financial. Both sufferers are considering to bring a claim in negligence against the school. In 1990 the case of Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990)1 formulated the three stage test to establish whether a duty of care is owed. The first stage is to determine reasonable forseeability. In the second stage the establishment of proximity between the parties takes place. Lastly, the courts consider whether it is reasonable and fair to impose a duty under the given circumstances.

The House of Lords in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) 2 makes it clear that in respect to physical damage a defendant owes a duty of care to those who he can reasonably foresee as likely to be affected by his actions. The plaintiff (Sam) “must show that the injury which he suffered fell within the scope of the schools duty and that in case of physical injury, the scope of the duty is determined by whether or not the injury fell within a description which could be said to have been reasonably foreseeable.” 3 As Sam is considering on suing Holly Park School it can be assumed that Sam was not one of the kids who participated in the fight and he was struck on the head by an accident.

Was it reasonably foreseeable to the school management that such-like concatenation of events could take place? While pupils are on school premises, school authorities and teachers owe pupils a duty of care of general supervision concerning their physical safety. 4 “It is a duty to ensure that reasonable steps are taken for the safety of the children, a duty of performance which cannot be delegated.” 5 It is stated in the Holly Park School’s case that on the accident day only one...