Negligence is grounded on the notion of duty of care, and the love thy neighbor principle enunciated in the 1932 decision of M’Alister(orDonoughue)v. Stevenson188
where Lord Atkin stated:
The rule you are to love your neighbor becomes in law you must not injure your neighbor; and the lawyer’s question, who is my neighbor, receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be, likely to injure your neighbor? The answer seems to be: persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.189
This fundamental postulate needs cautious appraisal in the context of the Rome Convention, which calls for a duty of care on the part of the operator toward everyone on the surface, imputing to the scope of air transport an untenably broad focus of foreseeability. Is the operator to foresee damage to every citizen of a State .own over in the event of an act of unlawful interference? If so, how is the operator to exercise due diligence and care to prevent such damage? Since the Donoughue decision was handed down, further clari.cation was provided on the issue of foreseeability in the 1977 House of Lords decision of Anns v. Merton London Borough Council190
where Lord Wilberforce said:
First, one has to ask whether, as between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has suffered damage there is a suf.cient relationship of proximity or neighborhood such that, in
187Second International Conference on Private International Law, 4–12 October 1929, Warsaw, Minutes, (translated by Robert C. Herner and Didier Legrez), Fred B. Rottman & Co., New Jersey, 1975, at 21.
188[1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.) Hereafter Donoughue.
189[1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.), 580.
190[1978] A.C. 728 (H.L.).
the reasonable contemplation of the former, carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage to the latter – in which case a prima facie duty of care arises. Secondly, if the .rst question is answered af.rmatively, it is necessary to consider whether there are any considerations which ought to negate, or to reduce or limit the scope of duty or the class of person to whom it is owed or the damages to which a breach may give rise.191
The foreseeability requirement would particularly be relevant under the Rome Convention when it comes to items dropped from the aircraft while in .ight which damage people or property not speci.cally foreseen as a vulnerable category by the operator, in view of the remoteness of such damage. The case of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railway Co.192 中国航空网 www.aero.cn 航空翻译 www.aviation.cn 本文链接地址：Aviation Security Law 航空安全法(65)
