Case Study of Negligence

There are two common factors that must exist before the law says a duty of care exists, which are

But first was he/she a legal neighbour. The law defines a neighbour as "someone so closely and directly affected by my act

In Caparo Industries plc v Dickman7, it was determined that courts had to test the duty by “whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable, whether there was a relationship of proximity between claimant and defendant, and whether it is just and reasonable to impose a duty.”8 If so, then a duty of care could arise.

As a result of the Defendant’s Actions, Mrs. Summers has a medical injury that entitle her to damages.

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

In the first case, Brenda and Carl are playing in a basketball game on opposing teams. During the game, Carl gets into a heated argument with one of the other teammates. Carl attempts to punch the teammate in the face, however the teammate ducks and he accidently punches Brenda with full force. The impact is so big that it breaks Brenda’s nose and she is rushed to the hospital. Brenda sues Carl for $30,000 in medical expenses related to the injury and the tuition lost when she was not able to attend school. The ruling is that even though Carl did not intend to break Brenda’s nose, he did intend on hitting the other teammate and causing harm onto him. However, I also blame the other teammate for ducking his head and being part of the physical altercation that lead Brenda to be injured. Therefore, I rule both Carl and his teammate liable for Brenda’s injury. Waldron believes that in the case between Fate and Hurt, it is unfair that Fate has full liability for his moment of carelessness when Fortune did the same act and did not have to pay any reparations.

For a negligence claim to be successful, it must be proven that the State Of Victoria owed our client such

Cause in fact occurs when the defendant's action is the actual result of the plaintiff's injury (Stapleton, 2011). The presence of this element can ordinarily, but not always, be determined by asking the "but for" question, that is, by asking whether or not but for the defendant's negligence the plaintiff would not have been injured. Meanwhile proximate cause refers to the foreseeability of the plaintiff's injuries. If plaintiff's injuries are remote or far removed from the

This causation is identified with the ‘but for’ test, in other words, ‘but for the defendant’s breach of duty would the damage or injury have occurred?’ the main case would be Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee, 1968, where the husband of the claimant went to the hospital due to strong stomach pain and vomiting. He was sent home after the Accident and Emergency department refused to examine him. After five hours, he died due to arsenic poisoning. The hospital owed the man duty of care and were also in breach after refusing to examine him. However, they were not liable as even if they had conducted the examinations the man would have died prior the results and treatment. Meaning that he would have died if the breach was or was not present, as their breach did not cause him to die.

Note that a duty of care may not be owed to a particular claimant, if the claimant was unforeseeable. See:

In Gregg v Scott, Mr. Malcolm Gregg (‘the claimant’), the House of Lords examined the law of negligence in the area of personal injury. In order for the claimant to have a successful claim in court, the onus to shifts to the claimant to demonstrate that a duty of care owed by the doctor, there was a breach of that duty, an injury was sustained, and the negligence on behalf of the doctor Dr. Andrew Scott (‘defendant’) was a cause of the ‘injury’. If these elements are not satisfied, the claimant may lose its entitlement to full compensation.

c) It is somewhat more difficult ot make judgments of contingent liabilities in general than for specific warranties because of the potential costs involved in the former. A claim for damages resulting from an oil spill such as Deepwater Horizon is an unforeseen liability, with costs that have not necessarily been planned for in terms of specific costs. Also, these damage

The case of Donoghue v Stevenson created a definition of a ‘neighbour’ towards a duty of care in negligence within the bounds of an indirect causal link without the added implication of a willful act or inherently dangerous goods. This provided a mechanism for a third party to go beyond the doctrine of privity and sue even if not a direct party to a contract.

It was held that damages are the compensation which an injured party may be entitled to get on adjudication by court of law but he does not get them by reason of any existing obligation on the part of the party, in breach of contract, who has no pecuniary liability till the court has determined the question of breach and the amount of compensation therefore. The court will not determine pre-existing liability. Further, since the breach of contract does not result in any existing obligation by the party committing breach, the right to recover damages is not an actionable claim and cannot be assigned.

Cooke J’s analysis of this element in Bowen appears to have more merit where he says: “new and distinct damage is a new cause of action” this seems far more just and fair in the current circumstances. Therefore, the court will likely sway towards utilising Cooke J’s obiter statement as it appears to be more persuasive in the context of our current case. Resulting in the plaintiffs’ cause of action likely to be valid for a claim as there was new and distinct damage within 6 years.