The Test for Safety Duty in NZ

Carrying out research and failed to draw attention to the fact contained arsenic. No sufficient relationship, potential claimants was the entire population of Bangladesh.

Guard negligently helping passenger with package lets it slip onto the track and fireworks expode. Down the other end of the platform, scales fall on the P's head. No duty to that P: "The P sues in her own right for a personal wrong to her, and not as a vicarious beneficiary of a breach of duty to another.

Fish wife heard but didn't see motorcycle accident. Not sufficiently proximate and harm not foreseeable. Could not build on a wrong to someone else.

Husband suffers a brain injury due to negligence of employer and sexually abuses wife. Applies Bourhill: no sufficient relationship

Insufficent relationship between prison and plaintiffs who claimed for harm caused by escapees a large distance from the prison. No proximity. Duty only to those in near vicinity.

Guest fell off a boat through no fault of the owner and rescuer had to go in. Duty owed by owner to rescuer that is independent of duty to guest.

Omission to provide resucitation facilities ringside resulted in brain injury. Induced reliance= voluntary act by D (creating a proximate relationship) so doesn't interfere with PP concern of individual autonomy and no general duty to act.

Shouldn't be too P minded: as well as practicality of restricting the floodgates, is imp PP concern that there is not a disproportionate response to wrongdoing and D adequately protected from undue burden of legal resp. Also imp of consistency in the legal sys: shouldnt interfere with other torts, e.g. no duty WRT negligent prosecution as would undermine stricter tort of malicious prosecution.

Solicitor failed to execute a will leading to disappointed beneficiaries. Duty founded on their vulnerability- PP of protection of the vulnerable

Duty will not be favoured if the P could have protected their own interests, e.g. in a contract or in a commercial setting.

Social workers could not have duty to potential abusers (parents) when would be inconsistent with stat duty to the child

No DOC owed by mother to foetus for negligent driving. Special policy concerns to be weighed up here- recognition would result in intrusion into bodily integrity and autonomy of mother and sujection of mundane decisions to judicial scrutiny.