- Legal term
- Duty of Care
- Jurisdiction
- Queensland, Australia
- Commonly arises in
- Motor vehicle accident matters, workplace common law claims, public liability matters, and medical negligence matters.
- Related concepts
- Negligence · Breach of duty · Reasonable care · Foreseeability
A duty of care is a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid causing harm to another person in circumstances where the law recognises that obligation.
Duties of care arise in many familiar relationships. For example, drivers generally owe duties to other road users, employers may owe duties to workers, occupiers may owe duties to people entering premises, and healthcare professionals may owe duties to patients.
Establishing that a duty of care existed is only one part of a negligence analysis. It may also be necessary to consider whether the duty was breached, whether the breach caused the injury or loss, and whether legally recognised damage resulted.
A duty of care is a legal responsibility to take reasonable care to avoid causing foreseeable harm to another person. Whether a duty exists depends on the relationship between the parties, the circumstances and the applicable law.
What Does Duty of Care Mean?
A duty of care is the legal responsibility one person or organisation may have to take reasonable care for the safety or interests of another person.
The duty does not require every possible precaution to be taken, and it does not guarantee that no injury will occur. It requires the level of care that the law considers reasonable in the circumstances.
In some relationships, the existence of a duty is well established. In less familiar situations, whether a duty exists may require closer consideration of the relationship between the parties, the foreseeability of harm, the degree of control exercised and other relevant legal principles.
Why Does a Duty of Care Matter?
A duty of care is commonly the starting point when considering whether a person or organisation may have been negligent. Before asking whether reasonable care was taken, it is usually necessary to identify whether the law imposed a duty in the circumstances.
However, proving that a duty existed does not, by itself, establish negligence or an entitlement to compensation. It may also be necessary to establish:
- The nature and scope of the duty;
- That the required standard of care was not met;
- That the breach caused or materially contributed to the injury or loss; and
- That legally recognised loss or damage resulted.
Owing a duty of care and breaching that duty are different questions. A person may owe a duty but still have acted reasonably in the circumstances.
Who Can Owe a Duty of Care?
Duties of care may arise between individuals, businesses, employers, professionals, public authorities and other organisations. Common examples include the following.
Drivers and Road Users
Drivers generally owe a duty to take reasonable care to avoid causing injury to passengers, pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.
Employers and Workers
Employers may owe workers duties relating to safe systems of work, suitable equipment, training, supervision and workplace risks.
Occupiers and Visitors
People or organisations controlling premises may owe visitors a duty to take reasonable care in relation to hazards on those premises.
Healthcare Providers and Patients
Doctors and other healthcare providers may owe patients duties in relation to diagnosis, treatment, advice and warnings about material risks.
The precise content of a duty depends on the circumstances. The steps reasonably expected of a driver will differ from those expected of an employer, occupier or healthcare professional.
How Is a Duty of Care Determined?
In established categories of relationship, the existence of a duty may be relatively straightforward. In other cases, courts may consider a range of factors when deciding whether the law should recognise a duty and how far it extends.
Depending on the type of matter, relevant considerations may include:
- Whether harm was reasonably foreseeable;
- The closeness or nature of the relationship between the parties;
- Whether one party exercised control over the risk or circumstances;
- Whether the injured person was vulnerable or able to protect themselves;
- Whether responsibility had been assumed;
- The terms of any relevant legislation; and
- Whether recognising the proposed duty would be consistent with existing legal principles.
No single factor necessarily determines the issue in every case. The analysis is fact-specific and depends on the legal context.
What Is the Scope of a Duty of Care?
Identifying that a duty exists is not always enough. It is also necessary to identify the scope of that duty—that is, what risks and conduct the duty actually covers.
The scope of a duty may depend on matters such as the activity being undertaken, the risk of harm, the person’s role, the degree of control available and the precautions that could reasonably have been taken.
Examples of duties of care
- A driver taking reasonable care when changing lanes or approaching an intersection.
- An employer assessing foreseeable workplace risks and implementing a reasonably safe system of work.
- A supermarket taking reasonable steps to identify and address hazards on the floor.
- A healthcare professional exercising reasonable professional care when diagnosing or treating a patient.
These examples are general only. The existence, scope and content of a duty depend on the particular facts and applicable law.
How Does Duty of Care Relate to Negligence?
Duty of care is one of several concepts commonly considered in a negligence claim. The questions are related but separate.
Duty
Did the person or organisation owe a legal duty to take reasonable care?
Breach
Did the person or organisation fail to meet the standard of care required in the circumstances?
Causation
Did the breach cause or materially contribute to the injury or loss?
Damage
Did the person sustain legally recognised injury, loss or damage?
The existence of a duty does not automatically mean the duty was breached. Similarly, a breach does not automatically establish liability unless the required connection with the injury or loss is also established.
Relevant Queensland Legislation
Duties of care may arise under the common law, legislation or a combination of both. The legislation relevant to a particular matter depends on the type of claim and its circumstances.
Contains important principles concerning breach of duty, causation and damages in many civil claims for harm. Section 9 addresses the general principles used to assess breach where a duty of care exists.
Establishes the pre-court process for many personal injury claims, including public liability and medical negligence matters.
Governs Queensland workers’ compensation matters, including statutory compensation and claims for common law damages.
Establishes Queensland’s compulsory third party insurance scheme for personal injuries arising from motor vehicle accidents.
The applicable legal framework should be considered in the context of the particular matter.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does duty of care mean?
Does everyone owe everyone else a duty of care?
Is duty of care the same as negligence?
Does an injury prove that a duty of care was breached?
Can more than one person owe a duty of care?
How is the required standard of care decided?
This article forms part of the YCL Compensation Law Dictionary, a collection of plain-English resources explaining legal concepts commonly encountered in Queensland compensation matters.
The dictionary is intended to help readers understand terminology used in workplace injury, motor vehicle accident, public liability and medical negligence matters.
