In contemporary legal writing and discourse, Lord Atkin’s neighbour principle is unloved. The now dominant view is that the neighbour principle performs no practical function since it is a mere descriptive label of the very different factual circumstances in which a duty to take reasonable care exists. It is the central contention of this paper that the neighbour principle is – in fact – invaluable as aid for the principled development of the tort of negligence. As this paper will show, the neighbour principle furnishes a common perspective that renders possible uniform determinations of analogical similarity and difference between novel categories of relations and established forms of negligent liability. The principle thus works in tandem with analogical reasoning to ensure objectivity in the delineation of the proper ambit of negligence law’s protection. Accordingly, the principle is an essential in ensuring a principled law of negligence whereby like cases are treated alike.

In contemporary legal writing and discourse, Lord Atkin’s neighbour principle is unloved. The now dominant view is that the neighbour principle performs no practical function since it is a mere descriptive label of the very different factual circumstances in which a duty to take reasonable care exists. It is the central contention of this paper that the neighbour principle is – in fact – invaluable as aid for the principled development of the tort of negligence. As this paper will show, the neighbour principle furnishes a common perspective that renders possible uniform determinations of analogical similarity and difference between novel categories of relations and established forms of negligent liability. The principle thus works in tandem with analogical reasoning to ensure objectivity in the delineation of the proper ambit of negligence law’s protection. Accordingly, the principle is an essential in ensuring a principled law of negligence whereby like cases are treated alike.

Zugl.: Zürich, Universiẗat, Diss., 2007.