Proximity and Reasonableness in Law

Paper Summary:

The paper discusses the concepts of proximity and reasonableness in relation to the law surrounding negligence. The paper also raises the question as to whether the judiciary's reliance on such tests is in fact a way of disguising judgements that have their foundations in policy rather than law.

From the Paper:

"It is possible to argue that the terms "proximity" and "fair, just and reasonable" are covert devices for the courts to decide cases on policy. In the case of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire the mother of the last rape victim that was killed by Peter Sutcliffe (The Yorkshire Ripper) sued West Yorkshire Police for negligence. She alleged they had not used reasonable care in apprehending him. Her lawyers argued that the police had been careless because they had failed to apprehend Sutcliffe earlier even though he had been brought in earlier than his eventual arrest. They argued that had Sutcliffe been apprehended earlier his final victim, Jacqueline Hill, would not have died. The House of Lords rejected this on the basis that there was insufficient proximity between the victim and the police. Lord Keith also refused to impose liability on policy grounds. His Lordship held that to impose liability in such circumstances would be counter productive."

More papers on Proximity and Reasonableness in Law:

• Research Paper # 7057 : "Conflict in Norther Ireland"
• Analytical Essay # 64862 : "Mothers-in-Law"
• Comparison Essay # 83555 : "Federal and State Employment Law"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: