The Liability Requirements : The Tort Of Negligence

Duty of Care: best interest; defensible decision making; contextualising behaviour; identification of positive and negative risks

“Whether a duty of care exists is a question of law for the judges to determine. In some circumstances, where the relationship between two parties is not covered by precedent, it is often not easy to discern the factors considered by a court to be relevant in deciding where a duty of care exists. In cases where there is no established category (novel fact situations), “the court

In this leaflet I will describe the law of negligence and occupier’s liability, economic loss and psychiatric loss.

        Compensatory Damages - Special damages: things with actual cost such as medical expenses. General damages: Include pain and suffering which actually can not be priced.

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 starting note, any mention of concurrent liability should be assumed to mean concurrently liability in tort and contract. Traditionally the distinction between contract and tort was that contract concerns the improvement of the claimant 's position, whereas tort is concerned with dealing with their position worsening. There has been dispute around concurrent liability and its ambiguity has led to varying decision in cases and statute making as Taylor puts it “the basis of concurrent liability uncertain”. This essay will argue Tort has and is extending itself beyond its traditional role due to judges presumption of morality leading to the unclear concurrent liability we see today. Whilst this concurrent liability shows some

Following Bridge’s comment that “the juridical basis of the duty to mitigate is obscure”, the first section of the essay will examine whether mitigation is best explained as an aspect of causation. It will be considered if causation explains mitigation, whether causation is the superior explanation, before discussing an alternative approach based on a reformulation of the compensatory principle. The second section of the essay will examine the true basis for the rules of remoteness in contract and tort, and will ask whether the

Negligence is a tort law and it falls within the civil law which means a civil wrong has been committed (Tort and Negligence, 2012). The American civil justice system, defines the law of torts as situations that occur when the wrongful conduct of one party causes harm to another individual (WiseGeek, 2003). The responsible party fails to act as a reasonable person to someone to whom she or he owes a duty, as required by law under the circumstances. Negligent torts are not committed purposely, and there must be an injury that occurs from the breach of the duty (Negligent Tort Law, 2014).

1. Review the hypothetical scenario at the beginning of this chapter. Has professional negligence been committed? What defenses can be raised?

Another Negligence mistake encountered by individuals is prematurely including Breach analysis in the Duty analysis. In this case, an individual will identify the issue for discussion as Duty but then proceed to explain how the Duty was breached without first explaining whether a duty is owed or identifying the standard of care. Essentially, this mistake leads an individual to omit the analysis of Duty altogether. To avoid this same mistake, reserve the analysis for

* Remoteness of damage (reasonable foreseeable test, the test is objective) would a reasonable person have foreseen the damage?

The main idea of the law of negligence is to ensure that people exercise reasonable care when they act by measuring the potential harm that may foreseeably cause harm to other people. Negligence is the principal trigger for liability to ascend in matters that deal with the loss of property of personal injury. Therefore, a person cannot be liable for something unless they have been found negligent or have contributed to the loss of property or injury to the plaintiff (Stuhmcke, 2005). There is more to

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.

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’.

The common law duty of care was established in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL) and refined in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 (HL). Any party including public authorities may owe a duty of care to another if particular conditions are fulfilled. The Caparo conditions apply to public bodies in respect of whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on their actions.