His case, though, was rejected by the Court of Appeal, which suggested that practical and policy reasons militated against allowing him to recover damages. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith said:
In my judgment both as a matter of principle and policy the court should not extend the duty to those who are mere bystanders or witnesses of horrific events unless there is a sufficient degree of proximity, which requires both nearness in time and place and a close relationship of love and affection between plaintiff and victim.
Would someone please explain how to determine which definition of duty applies here? I can't distinguish. Definition 1 looks correct, if I consider duty as 'responsibility of the law'. Yet Definition 3 looks right too, if duty = payment (in the form of damages) ?
Source: P95, How the Law Works, Gary Slapper