Duty of Care in Irish Tort Law

Duty of care is the first thing an examiner looks for and the thing students most often rush past. In an ordinary case it deserves one line; the marks lie in spotting when a case is not ordinary. Duty is also the doorway to much of the syllabus: psychiatric injury, pure economic loss, occupiers, employers and professional liability are all, at bottom, arguments about how far a duty of care reaches.

Negligence has four elements: duty, breach, causation and damage. Duty asks whether the law recognises a relationship between these parties at all. It is decided by the judge as a question of law, and answered at the level of the relationship, not at the level of this plaintiff's misfortune.

How the modern duty took shape

The modern law starts with Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 Persuasive (approved in IE), the case of the decomposed snail in the ginger-beer bottle. The manufacturer's defence was formal — it had no contract with the woman who drank the drink — and duties outside contract were then owed only in scattered recognised situations. The House of Lords held that a manufacturer owes a duty to the ultimate consumer. What made the decision foundational was Lord Atkin's reason for it, the neighbour principle: you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions you can reasonably foresee would injure your neighbour, meaning persons so closely and directly affected by your act that you ought to have them in contemplation. Reasonable foreseeability and proximity have sat inside that sentence ever since.

Irish law took the principle up early. Kirby v Burke & Holloway [1944] IR 207 Binding (IE), a case of contaminated jam, was the first Irish approval of Donoghue: Gavan Duffy J adopted the neighbour principle in the High Court.

The next move was Anns v Merton LBC [1978] AC 728 Persuasive (Eng), a two-tier test: foreseeability plus proximity raise a prima facie duty, which policy may then negative. Its attraction was one general principle capable of growing, in place of a patchwork of recognised situations. Its consequence was that the plaintiff started ahead: once foreseeability and proximity were shown, a duty existed unless the defendant talked the court out of it. The Supreme Court adopted that approach in Ward v McMaster [1988] IR 337 Binding (IE), allowing a purchaser of a defective council-financed house to recover. Anns was later overruled in England, but remained influential here until 2002.

The current Irish test: Glencar

Glencar Exploration plc v Mayo County Council (No 2) [2002] 1 IR 84 Binding (IE) arose from a prospecting company's claim for loss flowing from a county council's mining ban and an alleged negligent failure to grant planning permission. The Supreme Court held that no duty was owed: there was no proximity between the authority and the company, and it would not have been just and reasonable to impose one. Keane CJ used the occasion to correct the test. Foreseeability and proximity no longer suffice; the plaintiff must go on and show, as a positive hurdle, that it is just and reasonable to impose a duty, and that no countervailing policy reason stands against it. The Irish test therefore runs in four questions:

1. Reasonable foreseeability — was injury to this plaintiff (or class) reasonably foreseeable?
2. Proximity — was there a sufficiently close and direct relationship?
3. Just and reasonable — is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
4. Countervailing policy — is there a policy reason (floodgates, indeterminate liability, chilling of public functions) against it?

Why reject the Anns route? Because of where it puts the burden. O'Donnell J explained in Whelan v AIB [2014] IESC 3 Binding (IE) that the Anns prima-facie-duty-unless-negatived approach and the Glencar duty-only-if-just-and-reasonable approach are not the same thing said twice: the Anns formulation tilts the balance towards finding liability, whereas Glencar requires the plaintiff to make the positive case. Ward v McMaster survives, but must now be read subject to Glencar.

The English case in the background is Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 Persuasive (Eng), where auditors owed no duty to investors at large. Its incremental three-tier structure — foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty — is the basis of the current Irish test. But Caparo is persuasive only: the authority to cite in an Irish answer is Glencar.

Established categories and novel duties

Most negligence questions never reach the four-stage test, and an answer that runs it anyway reads as padding. Where the relationship falls into an established category — road users to one another, doctor to patient, employer to employee, manufacturer to consumer — the duty is already recognised: assert it in a line and move to breach.

What triggers the full analysis is novelty: a relationship not yet placed in a category, a public-body defendant, or a pure-omission or pure-economic-loss flavour. There, proximity and the just-and-reasonable question are genuinely contestable, and that is where the marks live.

The distinctions students get wrong

Duty is about a class of relationship, not this injury. The question is whether a defendant in this position owes a duty to a plaintiff in that position, not whether this plaintiff was hurt or how badly. Because it is a question of law, the answer binds beyond the case.

Foreseeability alone is never enough. Almost any harm can be called foreseeable after the event, which is why Glencar added a positive hurdle. Keep foreseeability's two jobs apart, too: it operates at the duty stage, and again, differently, at remoteness.

Proximity is not physical closeness. It is legal closeness — the directness of the relationship between these parties. Public-body cases show it best. Siney v Dublin Corporation [1980] IR 400 Binding (IE) found proximity because a local-authority tenant was within the class the housing statute was designed to protect and had relied on the authority. Sunderland v Louth County Council [1987] IR 372 Binding (IE) found none over planning permission for a house later prone to flooding: the planning function is owed to the community, not to the purchaser — who was as physically close to the decision as anyone could be.

"Just and reasonable" is not a licence for palm-tree justice. The considerations are recognised ones: floodgates, indeterminate liability, whether liability would chill a public function, whether the plaintiff belongs to a protected class and relied on the defendant. The point is illustrated by Beatty v Rent Tribunal [2006] 1 ILRM 164 Binding (IE), where McCracken J held that a tribunal exercising an adjudicative role in the public interest should not face liability in negligence that might compromise its independence.

Duty is not breach. Duty asks whether the law recognises the relationship; breach asks whether this defendant's conduct fell below the standard a reasonable person would have met in it. They fail separately: a duty can be beyond argument and the claim still collapse because the defendant behaved reasonably.

More free notes: psychiatric injury (nervous shock) · medical negligence · all free Tort Law notes.