civil liability of good samaritans and volunteers - Law Reform ...

knowledge that would be expected of a reasonable person in similarcircumstances to the particular case at hand. 123.10 The final step requires an investigation as to whether it would be “justand reasonable” to impose a duty of care. This third element is also sometimesreferred to as the policy factor. Prior to Glencar Exploration plc v Mayo CountyCouncil, 13 a two-stage test that accorded a lesser weight to public policyconcerns had been used. 14 In the Glencar decision, the Supreme Courtrestated the principles of the duty of care in negligence. 15 Delivering one of thejudgments in the Supreme Court, Keane C.J. considered it desirable to add athird requirement, the „just and reasonable‟ test, favoured by the UK House ofLords in Governors of Peabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay Parkinson & CoLtd 16 and later decisions of the House of Lords. 17 Therefore, added weight isnow given to the evaluation of whether it is just and reasonable to impose aduty of care in the circumstances.3.11 Specifically, the just and reasonable test looks at broadconsiderations of social policy in deciding whether a duty of care is owed.There must be no issues of public policy which could negative, limit or reducethe scope of the duty of care, the class of persons to whom it is owed or theamount of damages that are recoverable. In this regard, McMahon and Binchynote that the court may decide that it is not in society‟s best interests that adefendant, and others similarly acting, should compensate persons injured bythe particular conduct as this might deter other persons from engaging in that121314151617The Commission points out that a greater knowledge may be expected of aperson who is particularly skilled in the area of rescue, such as a voluntaryrescuer or medically qualified person where an intervention of rescue isconcerned.[2002] 1 IR 84. See also Fletcher v Commission for Public Works [2003] 1 IR 465.In the UK House of Lords decision Anns v Merton London Borough Council[1978] AC 728, Lord Wilberforce stated that once a duty of care had been found:“it is necessary to consider whether there are any considerations which ought tonegative, or to reduce or limit the scope of, the duty or the class of person towhom it is owed or the damages to which a breach of it may give rise.” This wasendorsed in Ireland by the Supreme Court in Ward v McMaster [1988] IR 337.For a detailed analysis see Byrne and Binchy, Annual Review of Irish Law 2001(Thomson Round Hall 2002).[1985] AC 210.This test had also been preferred by Costello J. in his High Court decision inWard v McMaster [1988] IR 337.52