The Liability Requirements : The Tort Of Negligence

7353 Words30 Pages
P1. The liability requirements in the tort of negligence In this task I will doing this by describing the basic concepts of duty, breach of duty and damage. I also will be linking this within certain case studies. I also will be making references to foreseeability and proximity as well as describing them. Duty of care A duty of care is mandatory in terms of legal issues and is enforced on an individual and it involves sensible care while performing any acts and should eliminate foreseeable actions which may put others in harm. An example of this is when a teacher should ensure the safety of the pupils. Breach of duty In law, there cannot be a responsibility in terms of the person being negligent and the claimant saying this without…show more content…
This means that it extents the amount of money or any other compensatory means in result of any damages for a wrong. I will now be describing the caparo 3 part test (p1a) and will be referring to Bourhill Vs Young for reasonable foreseeability. I will also be describing 'breach ' in terms of the person doing this and also by making reference to Nettleship Vs Weston (p1b). (p1c) I will be describing 'damages ' by describing the principles of causation and remoteness of damage with reference to cases such as Barnett V Chelsea & Kensington HMC and Wagon Mound. (P1a) Caparo three part test Before the caparo test there was something called the 'neighbour test '. This test was narrowed down in to two categories. They are; 1. Proximity of closeness 2. Reasonable foresight of harm However, the issue with this was that it had been used in many situations where duty of care had been made although they were in less obvious scenarios. This meant that the courts had to develop a further extension of guidelines to restrict some limits on the usage and extent of the 'neighbour test '. The caparo three part test was then made. The Caparo three part test was derived from Caparo Industries plc V Dickman (1990) and it started 'the incremental approach '. This approach consists of three questions; 1. was the damage or loss foreseeable? 2. is there sufficient proximity between the wrongdoer and the
Open Document