Tort of Negligence is solely a series of judge made laws and precedence
Can be committed be either an act or omission
Has three main elements which have to be proved by the claimant
a Duty of care owed by D to C
a breach of duty by D
Injury or damage to C resulting from this breach
All Three elements must ve satisfied for a sucessful claim
1 of 6
Duty of Care
First set out in Donoghue V Stevenson 1932
'The Neighbour Test' set out by Lord Atkins ''Persons who are so closely and directly affected by my acts or omission that I ought to have them in mind''
A three stage test was established in Caparo V Dickman 1990
Proximity of relationship
Forseeability of some harm
fair,just and reasonable to impose a duty of care
2 of 6
Breach of Duty
Once a duty of care has been established it is necessary to establish whether D has breached this duty
The standard demanded is not that of perfection but of the reasonable person. The standard is objective and takes no account of D's incompetence or inexperience
Nettleship V Weston 1971
There a variety of factors the court may take into account when deciding what the reasonable person would do
practicality and cost-Latimer V AEC
risk of harm-Bolton V Stone
forseeability of harm-Roe V Minister of Health
Vunerable claimant -Paris V Stepney
justifiable risk taking -Watt V Hertfordshire CC
skilled activites -Nettleship V Weston
Medical negligence -Bolam V Friern Barnett hospital/ Bolitho V City& Hackney Health Authority
3 of 6
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Res Ipsa Loquitur - 'The thing speaks for itself'
legal concept for C's - suggests there must've been negligence for the incident to have occurred
If C is able to claim Res Ipsa Loquitur they DO NOT have to prove there hs been a breach of duty- the breach must be obvious
Scott V London and St Katherine Docks
The principles are that
The thing that caused damage must be wholly controlled by D
The incident that caused the damage would've not happened unless some had been negligent
No other explanation for the injury/damage casued to C or their property
ie Customer slipping on yoghurt in Tesco -Ward V Tesco
4 of 6
Loss Injury or Damage
The claimant must finally prove that the breach of duty caused them to suffer some Loss, injury or damage
Factual Causation
C must show it is more likely than not that had D not been negligent C's injury/damage would have not occurred .
If it was (probably) caused by something else or would have happened anyway = claim fail
Barnett V Chelsea & Kensington Hospital
Legal Causation
Law also requires a reasonable forseeability of the kind of damage actually caused- even the most reasonable person cannot be expected to guard against a risk that cannot be foreseen
Wagon Mound
5 of 6
loss injury or damage cont
Legal Causation cont..
It is the kind of damage that must be forseeable- NOT its exact nature or extent
If some damage was a forseeable result of D's negligence, he is liable for all damage of that kind even if it was more serioys than anyone could have foreseen
Bradford V Robinson Rentals 1967
'Eggshell Skull rule' ensures that if some personal injury was forseeable, D is liable for the full extent of C's injuries even if C was particularly suscpetible
Smith V Leech Brain
Novus Actus Interveniens - Can sometimes cause issues if there is a new intervening act
Comments
No comments have yet been made