Duty of Care

by JPL Barraclough
(London England)

It seems to me that the gaming industry has a duty of care to its customers, and the following statement from english law appears to apply, I think that legally and morally the industry should do their utmost to provide adequate safety alerts, and failure to provide responsible advice on a product leaves them wide open to legal challenges, :-

The three stage test following the establishment of the two stage test for a duty of care, there was a marked judicial retreat from the test, which was widely seen as being too inclusive, and being too easily applicable to cases which might be contrary to public policy.13 The test was formally overruled in Murphy v Brentwood District Council,14 where the House of Lords invoked the Practice Statement to depart from the Anns test. The resultant test for a duty of care - which remains good law today - can be found in the judgments of Caparo Industries plc v Dickman.15 A large criticism of the Anns test had been that it combined the test for proximity of relationship with forseeability of harm.16 Whereas Lord Atkin's neighbour principle emphasised a need for both a proximate relationship, as well as a forseeability of harm, the Anns test did not make such a clear distinction. Richard Kinder has stated that this led the courts to sometimes ignore relevant policy considerations,17 and to encourage "lazy thinking and woolly analysis."18 The resounding test attempts to reconcile the need for a control device, proximity of relationship, with forseeability of harm. Lord Oliver's speech in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman surmises the test for a duty of care:19

The harm which occurred must be a reasonable foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct;
A sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood exists between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has suffered damage;
It is fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
In reintroducing the need for proximity as a central control device, it has been stated that these three stages are 'ingredients' of liability, rather than tests in their own right.20 For example, liability can arise between complete strangers, where positive acts involving foreseeable physical harm occur; where negligent omissions and misstatements occur however, it is necessary to show a proximate relationship, as well as a forseeability of harm.21

foreseeable harm can come from playing video games for extended time periods, there is a connection between the gaming industry and the gamer and the industry is negligent in not bringing this to their customers attention.

I hope your campaign is successful, by co-operation, however there may also be a legal remedy you may consider.


Comments for Duty of Care

Average Rating starstarstarstarstar

Click here to add your own comments

Nov 09, 2011
Rating
starstarstarstarstar
Co-operative Working
by: David Staniforth

Thank you for posting on the www.take-time-out.info website, your comments are most welcome and i can see the point you are making, at the moment we are endeavouring to work with the Gaming Industry via UKIE, who, have shown a positive approach so far, although we are still waiting to hear if they intend to act to bring about change voluntarily.
We are also working with the Government, Department of Health and promoting a positive campaign to help gamers be aware of the risks.We will soon be joining forces with Lifeblood The national Thrombosis charity who are very experienced in the subject and have won respect in many areas for their work.
We sincerley hope that the Gaming industry will soon respond to our suggestions without the need for legal redress.
Thank You once again for posting this very relevant point.

Click here to add your own comments

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How? Simply click here to return to Forum.