{"title":"公共政策论证","authors":"D. Fairgrieve, Dan Squires QC","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780199692552.003.0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Once it is determined that a claim is justiciable, whether liability will be imposed on a public authority depends on the application of ‘ordinary principles of negligence’, and this will mean that the claimant must establish he or she was owed a duty of care. Where it has been widely recognized in similar past cases that a duty of care is owed, liability is dependent only on establishing carelessness and causation, and the court will not consider the issue of ‘duty’ at all. Where it is less clear that a duty is owed, because we are dealing with a novel category of case in which duties have not been recognized previously, the tripartite test set out in the judgment of Lord Bridge in Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman, which we consider in more detail in Chapter 3, is applied. Pursuant to the test, the courts are to determine, first, whether harm was reasonably foreseeable, secondly, whether the claimant and defendant were in a sufficiently ‘proximate’ relationship to one another, and, thirdly, whether imposition of a duty of care would be ‘fair, just and reasonable’. The first two elements of the Caparo test are considered in Chapter 3. In this chapter we examine the third limb of the Caparo test.","PeriodicalId":147937,"journal":{"name":"The Negligence Liability of Public Authorities, Second Edition","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Arguments of Public Policy\",\"authors\":\"D. Fairgrieve, Dan Squires QC\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780199692552.003.0004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Once it is determined that a claim is justiciable, whether liability will be imposed on a public authority depends on the application of ‘ordinary principles of negligence’, and this will mean that the claimant must establish he or she was owed a duty of care. Where it has been widely recognized in similar past cases that a duty of care is owed, liability is dependent only on establishing carelessness and causation, and the court will not consider the issue of ‘duty’ at all. Where it is less clear that a duty is owed, because we are dealing with a novel category of case in which duties have not been recognized previously, the tripartite test set out in the judgment of Lord Bridge in Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman, which we consider in more detail in Chapter 3, is applied. Pursuant to the test, the courts are to determine, first, whether harm was reasonably foreseeable, secondly, whether the claimant and defendant were in a sufficiently ‘proximate’ relationship to one another, and, thirdly, whether imposition of a duty of care would be ‘fair, just and reasonable’. The first two elements of the Caparo test are considered in Chapter 3. In this chapter we examine the third limb of the Caparo test.\",\"PeriodicalId\":147937,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Negligence Liability of Public Authorities, Second Edition\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Negligence Liability of Public Authorities, Second Edition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199692552.003.0004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Negligence Liability of Public Authorities, Second Edition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199692552.003.0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
一旦确定一项索赔是可受理的,是否将对公共当局施加责任取决于“过失的一般原则”的适用,这意味着索赔人必须确定他或她负有注意义务。如果在过去类似的案件中,人们普遍认为存在注意义务,则责任仅取决于确定疏忽和因果关系,法院根本不会考虑“义务”问题。由于我们处理的是一种以前未承认关税的新类别案件,因此欠税的情况不太清楚,则适用Lord Bridge在Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman一案中判决中规定的三部分检验标准,我们将在第三章中详细讨论。根据这一标准,法院首先要确定损害是否可以合理地预见,其次,原告和被告之间是否存在足够的“近距离”关系,第三,注意义务的施加是否“公平、公正和合理”。第3章将考虑卡帕罗检验的前两个要素。在本章中,我们将考察卡帕罗检验的第三部分。
Once it is determined that a claim is justiciable, whether liability will be imposed on a public authority depends on the application of ‘ordinary principles of negligence’, and this will mean that the claimant must establish he or she was owed a duty of care. Where it has been widely recognized in similar past cases that a duty of care is owed, liability is dependent only on establishing carelessness and causation, and the court will not consider the issue of ‘duty’ at all. Where it is less clear that a duty is owed, because we are dealing with a novel category of case in which duties have not been recognized previously, the tripartite test set out in the judgment of Lord Bridge in Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman, which we consider in more detail in Chapter 3, is applied. Pursuant to the test, the courts are to determine, first, whether harm was reasonably foreseeable, secondly, whether the claimant and defendant were in a sufficiently ‘proximate’ relationship to one another, and, thirdly, whether imposition of a duty of care would be ‘fair, just and reasonable’. The first two elements of the Caparo test are considered in Chapter 3. In this chapter we examine the third limb of the Caparo test.