Explain and analyze the common law criteria used by the judiciary to determine liability under the tort of negligence for the following two types of injury claims: Physical injury. Psychiatric injury. In order to establish the tort of negligence, the plaintiff must prove three things:a. that the defendant owed him a duty of care.b. That the defendant failed to fulfill this obligation.c. That a reasonably foreseeable type of damage was caused by the violation. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (House of Lords) is a seminal case which sets out the general principles of the duty of care. It is also called neighbor test or neighbor principle. In Donoghue V Stevenson, the House of Lords found it necessary to overcome the problems generated by the exclusive nature of the contract in order to provide an alternative route of claim to the injured party. It was Ms Donoghue's friend who purchased the ginger beer which ultimately caused her injury and therefore only her friend had the right to sue under the contract. The House of Lords resolved this problem by imposing liability for negligence on the owner of the cafe, stating that this would be possible where a duty of care could be established between the owner (the tortfeasors) and the victim, Mrs Donoghue. Lord Atkin described the parameters of duty of care in this area in the following oft-quoted terms: “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you could reasonably foresee would be likely to harm your neighbor. Who, then, in law, is my neighbor? The answer seems to be people who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I should reasonably consider them to be affected when I direct my mind to the acts or omissions in question. "The ca...... middle of paper ......imposes a duty of care on the police. Fair, just and reasonableThe third part of the test, whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care, is very much a matter of public policy The courts are generally reluctant to impose a duty on public authorities, as demonstrated in the case of Hill v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1990), where it was emphasized that imposing a duty of care. a duty on the police could lead to policing being carried out defensively in a way that would distract from the suppression of crime, leading to lower standards of policing rather than higher ones. However, in certain circumstances, the police have a duty of care. In the case of MPC v Reeves (2001), the police arrested a man who was a prisoner who was known to be at risk of suicide. in police custody, he hanged himself in his cell. The court found that the police owed him a duty of care..