Study Notes
Key Case | Bourhill v Young (1943) | Negligence - Duty of Care & Foreseeability
- Level:
- A-Level, BTEC National
- Board:
- AQA, Edexcel, OCR, IB, Eduqas, WJEC
Last updated 30 Sept 2020
This case established that no duty of care is owed in negligence if the reasonable man would not foresee the risk of harm to the claimant.
CASE SUMMARY
Claimant: Mrs Bourhill - a heavily pregnant woman
Defendant: Mr Young - a motorcyclist
Facts: The claimant realised whilst disembarking a tram that there had been an accident nearby. She did not witness the initial incident but voluntarily approached the scene to witness the aftermath. As a result of viewing the scene the claimant suffered a stillbirth and sought a claim in negligence against the estate of the deceased motorcyclist.
Outcome: Not Liable
Legal principle: There was no duty of care owing from Mr Young to Mrs Bourhill as the requirement of foreseeability was not satisfied, the reasonable man in the position of the motorcyclist would not have foreseen that she would suffer some harm as a result of his actions.