Tort : A Breach Of Legal Duty

There are three elements that must be present for an act or omission to be negligent; (1) The defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff; (2) The defendant breached the duty of care by an act or omission; (3) The plaintiff must suffer damage as a result - be it physical, emotional or financial. The court might decide that Freddy (the plaintiff) was owed a duty of care by Elvis (the defendant) if they find that what happened to Freddy was in the realm of reasonable forseeability - any harm that could be caused to a 'neighbour' by Elvis' actions that he could reasonably have expected to happen. The 'neighbour principle' was established in the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932).

Negligence is the doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do, under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence.It is the failure to use ordinary or reasonable care.Ordinary or reasonable care is that care which persons of ordinary prudence would use

The Tort of Negligence put the claimant in the position to prove that the defendant owed to them a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty and the claimant must have suffered damages as result of that breach (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC562).

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.

In certain situations, a duty of care is owed to another person. For example, a surgeon owes a duty of care to whoever they operate on. The existence of a duty of care is established by the Neighbour Test which was brought in by Lord Aitken after the Donoghue v Stevenson case;

In Canada, when someone feels they have been wronged or injured by another, they can seek compensation through the courts. This area of law is known as tort law which examines conduct and consequences (Lin, 2010, p. 4). Tort law does not rely on promises or contracts. It is an area of law that examines the obligations and duties one party has to another. In relation to business and professionals, tort law aims to change the behavior of producers to prevent future harm or loss (Lin, 2010, p. 9).

This analysis has taken place in regards to the civil case of Moor v Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd [2014]. This case involves Moor the plaintiff accusing Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd the defendant of breaching their duty of care and simply failing to exercise the standard of care required by law. This case involves a civil wrongdoing. A civil wrong doing is generally a breach of a person 's rights. This generally associates with tort. This case involves a specific component of tort, negligence which exercises the legal right for a plaintiff to seek compensation for the damages caused by another party who were seen as legally liable. The case analysed within this report sees a Mr Christopher Moor sue Liverpool Catholic Club

Negligence is defined as the failure to use reasonable care to avoid a foreseeable harm to a person, place or thing.

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.

Intentional tort is the willful and intentional actions of a person to purposely because general or specific loss or harm from or to others. Intentional tort includes battery, assault, and false Imprisonment Negligence is the failure of a person to practice the legal standards established to protect others against potential risk or harm. The main comparison between intentional tort and negligence is the fact of a person(s) knowing and willfully committing a wrongdoing that will or potential cause loss or harm to others. Hello a negligence claim are the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff the defendant committed a breach of this duty and this breach was the actual and proximate cause of injury experienced by the plaintiff these are all the things needed to win a negligence case.(Mallor, 02/2015, p. 227)

Torts law has various elements like defamation, trespassing negligence etc. The one that concerns this case is negligence. The tort of negligence can be legally brought into action by the person facing damages against the person who had general duty of care for that person.

A tort is a civil breach had against another so that injured party can charge for damages. In personal injury cases, the injured party will attempt to receive compensation with the representation of a personal lawyer in order to recover from damages incurred. There are special laws for Tort which says whether a person should legally responsible for the breach against another or not, if so then how they are going to get the compensation and how much they will be getting that is explained. There are four elements to tort law: duty, breach of duty, causation, and injury The three main types of torts are negligence, strict liability and intentional torts.

Establishing whether not the current case is analogous to cases in which a duty of care already been determine. For instance the category of which duty of care has been held not to exist. The law justifies all these through the word responsibility. Everyone has a responsibility for their actions. This same word, responsibility, is also used to justify strict and vicarious liability. Parents, guardians, employers and other similar persons are responsible for their wards and employees. I think this is also a balancing of the scale. Due to circumstances such as incapacity in law of inability to pay, the injured party may be

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.