Negligence - Duty of Care Essay

At the first stage of the Anns test, two questions arise: “The first question is whether the circumstances disclose reasonably foreseeable harm and proximity sufficient to establish prima facie duty of care. The first inquiry at this stage is whether the case falls within or is analogous to a category of cases in which a duty of care has previously been recognized. The next question is whether this is situation in which a new duty of care should be recognized. At the second stage of the Anns test, the question still remains whether there are residual policy consideration outside the relationship of the parties that may negative the imposition of a duty of care. It is useful to expressly ask, before imposing a new duty of care, whether despite foreseeability and proximity of relationship, there are other policy reasons why the duty should not be imposed. This part of test only arises in cases where the duty of care asserted does not fall within a recognized category. The trial judge concluded that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action in negligence and that the plaintiffs should be permitted to bring a class action”.

Negligence per se is when there is a form of negligence on the violation of public duty when there is a failure of care administered. It is also applied when a person does something that is not part of reasonable behavior. A plaintiff does not necessarily have to prove otherwise that a reasonable person could have acted any different in a situation. The way for a plaintiff to generally try and prove that the defendant has violated the statute to where the acts of the defendant could have caused damage or pain to where it was against what the statute represents and prevents. For example, if a doctor was operating on a person and accidently leaves an instrument that was used inside of the person that would be considered negligent under those

RULE - Negligence occurs when an entity fails to exercise ordinary care to avoid injury to others. For a valid negligence claim the plaintiff must establish the following elements of proof: duty of care, breach of duty, cause in fact, proximate cause, and actual loss or harm. If the defendant can attack any of these elements they may successfully defend the negligence suit. The first element is establishing the presence of a duty of care owed by one party to another.

The growing interest in health and safety is broadening legislation and codes of practice based on the principles of common law. Common law assumes the employer has greater responsibility for employees than between other citizens in the community. Therefore even if an injured employee has contributed to the accident, or if another employee was totally responsible, the employer may be held liable.

contributory negligence is tort rule that is “abolished in most jurisdictions” and (2) the fact that

As a defence, contributory negligence has been used successfully to reduce the damages for the defendant to pay. In Wei Fan v South Eastern Sydney Local Health District (No.2)11, this principle was introduced by the defence to illustrate that they were not liable for the exacerbation of the plaintiff’s condition. The plaintiff attempted to claim for damages for the following conditions; diabetes type 2, progression of cholecystitis, fractured skull and traumatic brain injury. By applying contributory negligence to the case, the liability of the conditions was entirely placed on the plaintiff due to discharging himself from three hospitals within the district against medical advice. Discharging himself prematurely was proven to have lead to the exacerbation of the

The duty of care that Scott would be required to ascertain before the courts for a successful suit were first described by Lord Atkin in Donoghue v. Stevenson 1932 AC 562. While presiding over the case and in a majority ruling, Lord Atkin states that a duty to use ordinary care and skill arises in circumstances where the conduct of another might put others in danger. Reasonable care must be taken in particular circumstances to avoid omissions or acts that can be reasonably foreseen to as likely causes of harm or injury to another person. Whenever a person is engaged in actions whose outcomes he or she can reasonably foresee will likely to cause harm or injury to another person, a duty of care is then owed to that other person. Two tests must therefore be met to ascertain the existence of a duty of care from Matt – determination of proximity and foreseeability of the circumstances that led to Scott’s injuries.

The law of negligence covers a broad spectrum, with negligence being defined to apply in ‘any situation where a defendant has breached a duty of care owed to a claimant’. This essay will seek to look into the different areas within the law of negligence, to assess Lord Toulson’s assertion in Micheal v Chief Constable of South Wales (2015) . There will be a primary focus on his notion of ‘incremental growth’ , ‘argument by analogy’ , and the necessity of ‘policy considerations’ , with particular regard taken towards the mixture of policy considerations, in an effort to determine whether some areas, such as social costs, are weighed more heavily than others. Due to the wide breath and material covered under the law of negligence, this essay

The doctrine of comparative negligence would permit a court to create a fair distribution of fault between causal actors. Such a doctrine assigns percentages to those with legal responsibility. Courts would assign fault to parties based upon the “awareness or indifference with respect to the risks created . . . and any intent with respect to the harm caused . . . and the

Does defendant (David or the Bright Smiles Dental Surgery) owned duty of care to plaintiff (Tony)?

This paper will examine the judgments of Lord Nicholls and Lord Hoffmann. Representing the dissenting and majority judgment respectively, they have presented a set of arguments that were most compelling for cases of medical negligence dealing with a loss of chance. This paper will distinguish the judgments of both Lordships and will examine the reasoning behind their arguments while finally touching upon criticisms of their respective positions.

The duty of care was first established by Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562. It was recognised that a general duty of care was owed to a neighbour; defined as ‘someone who may be reasonably contemplated as closely and directly affected by an act’. To establish the Duty owed to Mrs Hanssen and Plaintiff Darcy Hanssen, this principle must be applied by satisfying two elements that constitute its prevalence; was there sufficient proximity of relationship? And whether it was it fair, just and reasonable to impose a

“In the majority of cases that come before the courts, whether the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care can be determined from precedent created by earlier cases; for example manufacturers of goods owe a duty of care to consumers, motorist owe a duty of care to other road users, boat captains owe a duty of care to their passengers, teacher owe a duty of care to their students, occupier owe a duty of care to persons who come on to their property. . (Andy Gibson, Douglas Fraser, Business Law 5th edition, Pearson 2011 page No.165, 166 and 169).”

Despite the general principle excluding liability for omissions, liability may arise in certain exceptional circumstances. Although these situations where a duty may arise on the basis of an omission are difficult to classify, what is usually required in all of them is some element of proximity. This may be created in a number of situations which will now be looked at. In addition, in such cases, the factors for establishing a duty of care (forseeability, proximity, fair, just and reasonable) laid down in Caparo will also need to be looked at.

Perhaps the greatest insight provided by my colleague's discussion is the deconstruction of the process by which the concept of negligence did ultimately emerge as a new tort standard. Here, the discussion illustrates the challenge before a judicial body when a legal conflict appears to bring about a new and previously unforeseen point of contention. In this case, as my colleague highlights so effectively, the charge of fraud would be the only theretofore existent way of legally addressing liability for a business or organization such as the defendant in this case. The great insight provided by my colleague is in acknowledgement of the exhaustive review of existing legal documents engaged by the ruling parties and arguing parties. This process demonstrates well that even where no precedent existing for what would become the charge of negligence,