The Case Of Hill Chief Constable Of West Yorkshire 1989

Establishing negligence requires the plaintiff to prove the three elements of negligence before a court. The elements are that, the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, the duty of care was breached, and that the harms suffered were directly related to the defendant’s breach. For a successful claims the plaintiff must satisfy all three by the balance of probabilities, which has been the case since Donohue v Stevenson. Simon must therefore prove that there was a duty of care owed to him by the defendant, his teacher, Mr Philpot. Therefore, he must prove that the harm suffered would have been reasonably foreseeable due to the actions or omission of the defendant. In this case, Mr Philpot owes Simon a duty of care, as it is reasonably foreseeable that a failure to provide sufficient supervision could result in injury when considering the nature of the environment they are in and the age of the students. Therefore, the first element is satisfied.

The tort law section that falls into this case is negligence. Negligence is made up of three elements which determine negligence and duty of care is owed in this case State of Victoria v Bryar [1970] 44 ALJR 174.

Negligence is the failure to do something. Many medical cases are filed as medical malpractice suits, “medical malpractice is professional misconduct. Malpractice differs from negligence because it is performed by a license medical professional” (Flight 2). The case of Horton V. Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center can be used as a primary example where negligence, “failure to take reasonable precautions to protect others from the risk of harm” (Flight 33), is visible.

For the Caparo test (Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605) the claimant must establish the foreseeability of the harm and a relationship proximity between him and that defendant. After the Court will listen to the defendant and decide if it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.

Negligence is when somebody has a duty of care and that duty is breached. Negligence is split into 3 parts.

Tort law enables citizens to seek reimbursement for loss and or suffering from conduct that would be deemed dangerous or unreasonable of others (3). Tort law is non criminal and is dealt with in our civil judicial system. The categories of Tort Law include intentional tort, negligence and strict liability.

When someone doesn’t live up to their responsibility of exercising care, and that failure leads to another person’s injury or death, the action or lack of action is referred to as negligence. As an example, say someone causes a fatal accident because they were speeding. In this case, the driver who was driving above the speed limit acted negligently, and therefore can be held liable in court for damages caused. The victim’s surviving family members can also file a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that the driver who caused the crash owes them damages associated with that untimely and unnecessary death.

Negligence is carelessness amounting to the culpable breach of a duty, ie failure to do something that a reasonable person (ie an average

2. Maclntyre, Ewan. "The Law of Torts 1." Introduction to Business Law. 2nd ed. Essex: Pearson Education, 2012. 258-304. Print.

Negligence characterises the conduct of individuals. Under s 43 of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), negligence means failure to exercise reasonable care. In other words, there was ‘some duty owed to the person.’ Duty of care is an important mechanism in the law of negligence that controls the imposition of liability and it looks at the relationship between a plaintiff and a defendant. The conclusion that was held in the case of Stephens v Giovenco; Dick v Giocenvo [2011] NSWCA 53 in regards to who owed whom a duty of care is correct. If it were so otherwise, it would open the floodgates and there would be an influx of claims within the court system.

Presented are four separate cases that have been argued and settled in a court of law. Each of these cases represent a different kind of tort, a tort is a civil wrong or wrongful act, which can be either intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another (Hill & Hill n.d.). The torts are as listed, intentional, criminal, negligence, and liability as presented in the four researched cases.

Negligence is the failure to exercise due care or diligence that a reasonable or prudent man would exercise in similar circumstances. The law of negligence falls under tort law where it involves harm that is caused by carelessness and not intentional harm (Katter, 2002). A tort is a civil wrong that is in the form of a breach of duty, which amounts to legal remedy that is awarded in damages. Tort law rests upon two principles that state that an act or omission by the defendant interferes with the rights of the plaintiff, which in turn causes damages (Trindade, 2007). Secondly, the interference caused by the defendant gives rise to a cause of action for damages that are as near as possible to the plaintiff’s loss. Therefore, negligence can be defined as doing something that a reasonable man would not have done in similar circumstances or failure to do what a reasonable man would have done which amounts to infliction of harm.

Claimant, on the balance of probabilities (51% or more), must prove that the negligence was a result of the injury, to establish causation. If this is successful, the claimant will be entitled to full compensation. If on balance of probability is 49% or less, the patient will not be entitled to damages. The issue in court was the difficulty to rely on the accuracy of the probability as evidentiary basis.

e. Three separate torts protect those unreasonably subject to litigation: malicious prosecution, wrongful civil proceedings (both seek to compensate those

The purpose of this assignment is to discuss the creation and application the case law resulting from the decision in Donoghue v Stevenson . This decision is often cited in relation to the tort of negligence and a duty of care. As such it could be misunderstood as being the preeminent case for the principles of negligence or duty of care alone. It is however the landmark precedent case for the tort of negligence outside of a contract when taking into account ‘duty of care’ and the ‘neighbour priciple’.