'The Assumption of Responsibility' - Andrew Robertson: Cambridge Private Law Centre Seminar
Duration: 46 mins 20 secs
Share this media item:
Embed this media item:
Embed this media item:
About this item
| Description: |
Andrew Robertson (University of Melbourne), delivered a seminar entitled "The Assumption of Responsibility" as a guest of the Cambridge Private Law Centre on Friday 23 January 2015.
For more information about the Centre please refer to the CPLC website at http://www.privatelaw.law.cam.ac.uk/ |
|---|
| Created: | 2015-01-26 14:43 |
|---|---|
| Collection: | Cambridge Private Law Centre Lectures and Seminars |
| Publisher: | University of Cambridge |
| Copyright: | Mr D.J. Bates |
| Language: | eng (English) |
| Abstract: | This lecture considers what, if anything, is distinctive about duties of care arising from assumptions of responsibility. In the 50 years that have passed since the decision in Hedley Byrne v Heller, the assumption of responsibility has come to play a central role in liability for pure economic loss, liability for omissions and at least some non-delegable duties of care. The strong association of the concept with more onerous duties would suggest that there is something distinctive about the assumption of responsibility as a source of obligation. Indeed, the distinctiveness of this category of obligation is pivotal to certain rights-based theories of the law of torts and the law of negligence. Can the obligation in question be understood as voluntary? If not, is it perhaps distinctive because the defendant has willingly entered into a relationship with the claimant in which it can reasonably be expected that the defendant will be mindful of the claimant’s interests? It will be argued, with reference to cases on pure economic loss, non-delegable duties and omissions, that neither of those explanations stands up to close scrutiny, and the assumption of responsibility is no more than a loosely defined subset of proximity. It will be seen, however, that the contrast between the ‘voluntary undertaking’ and ‘proximity’ models of obligation sheds light on a number of interesting issues, particularly in relation to liability for omissions. |
|---|---|