CIVIL LAW AND UAE: SIMPLE DUTY OF CARE EXAMPLES

1. Meaning of Duty of Care

A duty of care is a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid causing foreseeable harm to another person or their property.

In simple words:

If your conduct creates a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to another person, the law may require you to take reasonable precautions to prevent that harm.

A duty of care can arise from:

the relationship between the parties;

a contract;

professional responsibility;

assumption of responsibility;

control over property or activities;

legislation; or

the circumstances of the particular case.

2. Simple Formula

Remember:

DUTY → BREACH → CAUSATION → LOSS → REMEDY

For example:

A hotel knows that its floor is dangerously wet.

↓

It fails to put up a warning sign.

↓

A customer slips.

↓

The customer suffers injury.

↓

A negligence claim may arise if the required legal elements are established.

3. Duty of Care Under DIFC Law

The DIFC Law of Obligations provides a particularly clear statutory framework.

Article 17 generally requires:

a duty of care;

breach of that duty; and

loss caused by the breach.

Article 18 identifies three important considerations for the existence of a duty:

reasonable foreseeability of loss;

sufficient proximity between the parties; and

whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose the duty.

Article 21 deals with the standard of reasonable care.

Thus:

Foreseeability + Proximity + Fairness → Duty of Care

and:

Duty + Breach + Causation + Loss → Negligence Liability

4. Example 1: Shop Owner

A supermarket knows that water has been spilled on the floor.

The supermarket does nothing.

A customer walks over the wet area and falls.

Possible duty

The supermarket may owe customers a duty to take reasonable care for their safety.

Possible breach

Failing to clean the spill or provide an adequate warning may amount to a failure to exercise reasonable care.

Causation

The claimant must establish that the unsafe condition caused the injury.

Lesson

Businesses open to customers should take reasonable precautions against foreseeable risks.

5. Example 2: Doctor or Medical Professional

A doctor provides professional medical services.

The doctor is expected to exercise the appropriate professional standard of care.

The question is not:

“Was the treatment unsuccessful?”

The more important question is:

“Did the professional exercise the legally required reasonable level of care?”

Under the DIFC Law of Obligations, a professional person generally exercises reasonable care when applying the standard of an ordinarily skilled person exercising the relevant special skill.

Lesson

Professional duty → professional standard of reasonable care.

6. Example 3: Employer and Employee

An employer has responsibilities toward employees in the workplace.

Examples include taking reasonable precautions concerning:

workplace safety;

dangerous equipment;

foreseeable risks;

appropriate procedures;

working conditions.

An employee may also owe duties to the employer, particularly in performing assigned responsibilities carefully and following reasonable procedures.

In George v Gloria Beauty Lounge LLC, the DIFC Court recognised the general principle that an employer owes a duty of care to an employee and that an employee can also owe a duty of care to the employer.

7. Example 4: Landlord and Tenant

A landlord and tenant have a close legal relationship.

Depending on the circumstances, a landlord may have duties concerning:

dangerous conditions;

property defects;

information supplied to the tenant;

reasonably foreseeable risks.

In Haya Spa LLC v Harper Real Estate / Hasan Real Estate, the DIFC Court specifically observed that landlords and tenants typically owe duties of care to one another appropriate to their relationship.

Example

A landlord provides incorrect technical information about the premises.

The tenant relies on it and suffers loss.

The court may examine:

Was there a duty?

Was the information incorrect?

Was reliance foreseeable?

Was reasonable care exercised?

Did the information cause the loss?

8. Example 5: Bank

Banks may owe particular duties concerning the handling of customer instructions.

However, the existence and scope of the duty depend heavily on:

the banking relationship;

contractual arrangements;

the circumstances;

the type of transaction;

applicable legislation.

In Aegis Resources DMCC v Union Bank of India (DIFC Branch), the DIFC Court considered the bank's duty of care in the context of allegedly fraudulent payment instructions and discussed the limits of the bank's obligation to act on its customer's mandate.

Lesson

A duty of care does not necessarily require a bank to investigate every transaction like a detective.

The scope of the duty must be determined from the legal and factual circumstances.

9. Example 6: Professional Adviser

Suppose an investment adviser gives advice to a client.

The adviser represents that it has specialist knowledge.

The client relies on that advice.

If the adviser fails to exercise reasonable professional care and foreseeable loss results, a duty-of-care claim may potentially arise.

The important questions are:

Was there a relationship of sufficient proximity?

Did the adviser assume responsibility?

Was reliance foreseeable?

Was reliance reasonable?

Was reasonable professional care exercised?

Did the advice cause the loss?

10. Example 7: Construction Professional

An architect or engineer may owe duties concerning professional work.

For example:

An engineer prepares structural calculations.

The calculations contain a negligent error.

The error contributes to structural damage.

A court may examine:

professional standard;

duty;

breach;

causation;

extent of damage.

The fact that the professional made an error does not automatically establish liability.

The claimant must establish the applicable legal elements.

11. Example 8: Information Provider

Suppose a landlord gives a tenant a technical drawing.

The landlord's employee incorrectly identifies the location of a unit.

The tenant relies upon that information when planning its premises.

The mistake causes additional costs.

This was essentially the type of issue examined in Haya Spa LLC v Harper Real Estate / Hasan Real Estate [2016] DIFC SCT 150.

The court applied Articles 17, 18 and 21 of the DIFC Law of Obligations and considered duty, breach, causation and reasonable care.

Lesson

Providing information can sometimes create a duty of care where responsibility and reliance are legally established.

12. Example 9: Employer's Administrative Responsibility

An employer may have statutory obligations toward an employee.

But an important legal distinction exists:

A statutory obligation does not automatically create a separate common-law duty of care.

This was clearly considered in Faizal Babu Moorkath v Expresso Telecom Group Ltd [2023] DIFC CFI 008.

The Court explained that a statutory employment obligation concerning visa cancellation did not automatically create an identical common-law duty of care. The existence of a negligence duty still had to be assessed under the applicable duty-of-care requirements.

Lesson

Statutory duty ≠ automatically identical tort duty.

13. Example 10: Pure Economic Loss

Duty of care becomes more complicated where the claimant suffers only financial loss rather than physical injury or property damage.

For example:

A financial adviser gives incorrect information.

A client invests money.

The investment loses value.

The client claims negligence.

The court may ask additional questions concerning:

assumption of responsibility;

reliance;

reasonableness of reliance;

proximity;

foreseeability.

Under DIFC Article 20, additional requirements apply to pure economic loss, including assumption of responsibility and reasonable reliance.

14. Main Elements of Duty of Care

A. Foreseeability

Could a reasonable person have anticipated that the conduct might cause loss?

Example

A business leaves an exposed electrical wire in a customer area.

Injury may be foreseeable.

B. Proximity

There must generally be a sufficiently close relationship between the parties.

Example

Doctor → patient

is ordinarily closer than:

Random company → unknown member of the public.

C. Fair, Just and Reasonable

The law also considers whether imposing a duty is appropriate in the circumstances.

This prevents negligence law from expanding indefinitely.

The DIFC Law of Obligations expressly incorporates this consideration into Article 18.

15. Standard of Care

After establishing that a duty exists, the next question is:

What level of care was required?

The basic concept is reasonable care.

A person is not normally required to guarantee that no harm will ever occur.

Instead, the person should take reasonable precautions against foreseeable risks.

16. Ordinary Person Standard

For ordinary activities, the question can be:

What would a reasonable person exercising ordinary care have done?

Example

A homeowner knows that a staircase is dangerously broken.

A reasonable precaution could include:

repairing it;

blocking access;

warning visitors.

17. Professional Standard

Professionals are judged according to the standard appropriate to their professional skill.

Examples:

doctor;

engineer;

architect;

accountant;

lawyer;

financial professional.

The DIFC statutory framework expressly recognises the standard of an ordinarily skilled professional exercising the relevant special skill.

18. Breach of Duty

A duty alone does not create liability.

There must normally be a breach.

Example

A doctor owes a duty of care.

But the doctor may have complied with the appropriate professional standard.

Therefore:

Duty exists ≠ Breach automatically exists.

19. Causation

The claimant must connect the breach to the loss.

A simple question is:

Did the defendant's breach cause the claimant's loss?

In DIFC law, Article 10 adopts a causation approach requiring the claimant to establish that, but for the defendant's conduct, the claimant would not have suffered the loss and that the conduct was a substantial cause of the loss.

20. Damage or Loss

A negligence claim generally requires legally recognised loss.

Possible forms can include:

physical injury;

property damage;

financial loss;

other legally recognised damage.

But the requirements vary according to the type of loss.

Pure economic loss is subject to additional considerations under DIFC law.

21. Contributory Negligence

Sometimes the claimant also contributes to the loss.

Example

A customer ignores a clearly displayed warning sign and enters a dangerous area.

If the defendant was also negligent, the claimant's conduct may affect the amount recoverable.

DIFC Article 17 expressly provides for reduction of liability to the extent the claimant's negligent conduct contributed to the loss.

22. Important Case Laws

Case 1: Haya Spa LLC v Harper Real Estate / Hasan Real Estate [2016] DIFC SCT 150

Facts

A tenant relied upon incorrect AutoCAD information supplied by the landlord's representative.

Principle

The Court considered the negligence framework under Articles 17, 18 and 21 of the DIFC Law of Obligations, including duty, breach, causation and reasonable care.

It also explained the potential duty of care between landlords and tenants.

Importance

Landlord/tenant relationship + information + reliance + reasonable care.

23. Case 2: George v Gloria Beauty Lounge LLC [2016] DIFC SCT 086

Facts

An employee brought claims against an employer involving alleged negligent conduct and loss.

Principle

The Court set out the statutory elements of negligence and recognised that employers and employees can owe duties of care to one another.

The Court also explained the additional requirements applicable to pure economic loss.

Importance

Employment relationship can create a duty of care, but breach and causation still have to be proved.

24. Case 3: Aegis Resources DMCC v Union Bank of India (DIFC Branch) [2020] DIFC CFI 004

Facts

The dispute involved allegedly fraudulent payment instructions and the bank's responsibilities when processing payments.

Principle

The Court considered the bank's duty of care and the limits of that duty. It discussed the principle that a bank generally acts on its customer's mandate and does not automatically have to act as an investigator in every transaction.

Importance

A duty of care has a defined scope; it is not an unlimited obligation to prevent every possible loss.

25. Case 4: Shihab Khalil v Shuaa Capital PSC [2009] DIFC CFI 017

Facts

The claimant alleged negligence and other wrongdoing involving a corporate relationship.

Principle

The Court explained that a negligence claim requires both lack of due care and resulting loss.

It also discussed the three-part approach to duty of care:

foreseeability;

proximity; and

whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose the duty.

Importance

This is an important case for the basic duty + causation structure.

26. Case 5: Gate MENA DMCC & Huobi MENA FZE v Tabarak Investment Capital Ltd & Christian Thurner [2020] DIFC TCD 001

Facts

The case involved claims arising from cryptocurrency transactions and alleged failures concerning custody/escrow arrangements and advice.

Principle

The Court considered Articles 17, 18 and 21 of the DIFC Law of Obligations.

The claimants argued that the defendants' role, representations, advice and alleged assumption of custody responsibilities supported a duty of care.

Importance

The case demonstrates how assumption of responsibility can become important when determining whether a duty exists.

It also shows that the duty-of-care analysis can apply to modern digital-asset transactions.

27. Case 6: Faizal Babu Moorkath v Expresso Telecom Group Ltd [2023] DIFC CFI 008

Facts

An employee claimed loss of earnings allegedly caused by the employer's failure to cooperate in cancelling his visa.

Principle

The Court held that a statutory employment obligation does not automatically create a coextensive common-law duty of care.

The claimant still had to establish the requirements for a negligence duty and prove that the alleged breach caused the claimed loss.

Importance

Statutory obligation and common-law duty must be legally distinguished.

28. Case 7: Ludiala v Lucaan Limited [2020] DIFC SCT 139

Facts

The claimant alleged that workplace conduct caused psychological harm.

Principle

The Court emphasised that establishing negligence requires proof of causation. The medical evidence did not sufficiently establish that the defendant's conduct caused the alleged psychological condition.

The claim therefore failed on causation.

Importance

Even where a duty and possible wrongdoing are alleged, causation must be proved.

29. Case 8: Alawwal Capital JSC v Rasmala Investment Bank Limited [2023] DIFC CFI 038

Facts

The claimant alleged that representations made by an investment manager were negligent and caused it to make an investment.

Principle

The Court considered Articles 10 and 18 of the DIFC Law of Obligations, including causation, foreseeability and duty of care.

The case illustrates the importance of connecting alleged negligent representations with the claimant's decision and resulting loss.

Importance

Professional information + reliance + causation are central to many financial negligence claims.

30. Duty of Care in Different Relationships

The exact existence and scope of the duty must always be determined under the applicable law and facts.

31. Duty of Care vs Contractual Duty

These concepts can overlap.

Contractual duty

Comes from the agreement.

Example:

“The contractor must complete the work by 1 January.”

Duty of care

May arise independently from the relationship and circumstances.

Example:

“The contractor must take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable damage to neighbouring property.”

A single dispute can potentially involve both.

32. Duty of Care vs Statutory Duty

These should also be distinguished.

Statutory duty

Created directly by legislation.

Common-law/statutory negligence duty

Requires the applicable legal test for a duty of care.

As Moorkath v Expresso Telecom demonstrates, the existence of a statutory obligation does not necessarily mean that an identical negligence duty automatically arises.

33. Simple Construction Example

A contractor is working next to an occupied building.

The contractor knows that falling materials could damage the neighbouring building.

Duty

Reasonable care may require protection measures.

Breach

The contractor removes protective barriers without adequate replacement.

Accident

Materials fall.

Damage

The neighbouring property is damaged.

Legal analysis

Duty → Breach → Causation → Damage → Remedy

This is a classic duty-of-care structure.

34. Simple Banking Example

A company receives a suspicious payment instruction.

The bank processes it.

The customer alleges that the bank should have stopped the transaction.

The court may ask:

What was the bank's duty?

What did the contract require?

What did the circumstances reasonably indicate?

Was there sufficient evidence of fraud?

Did the bank breach its duty?

Did the breach cause the loss?

Did the customer's own conduct contribute?

The Aegis case illustrates why the precise scope of a bank's duty matters.

35. Simple Professional Advice Example

A financial adviser tells a client:

“This investment is completely safe.”

The client relies on the statement and invests AED 1 million.

The investment loses AED 300,000.

The court cannot simply say:

“The investment lost money, therefore the adviser is liable.”

It must examine:

whether a duty existed;

whether the adviser assumed responsibility;

whether the client reasonably relied;

whether the statement was negligent;

whether the statement caused the investment;

whether the loss is legally recoverable.

This is why Alawwal Capital v Rasmala is useful for understanding duty, representation, reliance and causation.

36. Simple Examination Checklist

When asked a duty-of-care problem, write:

1. Duty

Did the defendant owe a duty?

2. Foreseeability

Was harm reasonably foreseeable?

3. Proximity

Was the relationship sufficiently close?

4. Fairness

Is it appropriate to impose the duty?

5. Standard

What level of reasonable care was required?

6. Breach

Did the defendant fall below that standard?

7. Causation

Did the breach cause the loss?

8. Damage

What legally recognised loss occurred?

9. Contributory negligence

Did the claimant contribute to the loss?

10. Remedy

What compensation or other remedy is available?

37. Easy Memory Formula

F-P-F + B-C-D

F = Foreseeability

P = Proximity

F = Fair, just and reasonable

↓

B = Breach

C = Causation

D = Damage

So:

Foreseeability + Proximity + Fairness → Duty → Breach → Causation → Damage

38. Key Case-Law Revision Table

39. Final Conclusion

The duty of care is the legal responsibility to take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm.

The most important questions are:

Was there a duty?

What was the required standard of care?

Was that standard breached?

Did the breach cause the loss?

What damage resulted?

In UAE legal study, it is particularly useful to remember the DIFC statutory formulation:

Duty + Breach + Causation + Loss

with duty generally assessed through:

Foreseeability + Proximity + Fairness, Justice and Reasonableness.

For mainland UAE disputes, however, the applicable provisions of the UAE federal civil-law framework and any relevant special legislation must be checked separately; DIFC negligence cases are persuasive/illustrative only and are not automatically binding on mainland courts.

One-line exam definition

Duty of care is a legal obligation requiring a person, in an appropriate relationship or situation, to exercise reasonable care to prevent reasonably foreseeable harm to another person or their property.