Abstract
The purpose of this article is to examine two issues central to the tort of negligence: the role of reliance in establishing a duty of care; and the relationship between the harm-within-risk rule and the rule excluding liability for coincidental harm as tests for legal causation. I will use the unusual facts of Bhamra v Dubb in which the defendant caterer was under a duty not to serve eggs for religious reasons, and the guest suffered from a known egg allergy and ultimately died, as a platform for this analysis. While the Court of Appeal was correct in establishing a duty towards Bhamra on Bhamra’s reliance that eggs would not be served, it erred in limiting the duty to those aware that they suffer from egg allergy …
Keren-Paz, Tsachi, Liability for Consequences, Duty of Care and the Limited Relevance of Specific Reliance: New Insights on Bhamra v Dubb (2016). Journal of Professional Negligence, volume 32, pp 48-65, 2016.
First posted 2018-12-06 07:13:40
Leave a Reply