Reasonable person

and occupier’s liability, economic loss and psychiatric loss. Negligence is when somebody has a duty of care and that duty is breached. Negligence is split into 3 parts. Duty of Care 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 the Donoghue v Stevenson case

(Tony)? Rules: * The neighbour principle: In Donoghue v Stevenson1, Lord Atkin concluded that we all owe a duty of care to our “neighbors”, meaning those persons who we should have in mind when we are contemplating actions that we take as we go about our business and private lives. * Neighbour Defined: “My neighbors are persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when directing my mind to the acts

Breach of duty In law, there cannot be a responsibility in terms of the person being negligent and the claimant saying this without

.0 Introduction 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

’ If the conduct falls below the standard of care, then it is established that the party acted carelessly in the eyes of the law and consequently so found at fault. Negligence involves doing or failing to do something that a reasonable person in the situation would or would not have done and thus leaves the party with damage, injury or loss as a consequential result. In this particular case, the most likely outcome would be that the court would find that the standard of care was to

A) The accounting firm Hatchet & Co (“Hatchet”), could be sued by Giant plc. (“Giant”), as in their audit, the company accounts has been overstated, causing initially a rise in the shares value but then naturally a drastic fall when Giant was found to be making losses. The accounting firm is also thought to be liable towards some shareholders as Gloria and Henry, which lost the money they invested in the company. Hatchet, being an Accounting firm and thus treated in the low of torts as a professional

tort is very different from a regular crime. Whereas an individual suffers from injury due to an act of another person and the court can present a redress in a tort, in a crime, the wrong is perceived to target the entire community and the courts are required to follow the prevailing criminal law to offer requisite punishment to the person who is being accused of criminal liability. A person who is perceived to cause harm to another individual due to negligence, is perceived to have committed a tort

of its duty of care as an occupier. The primary judge, Levy SC DCJ, found on the calculus of negligence, that the risk of injury from slipping when descending wet stairs whilst wearing skates was foreseeable, not insignificant and one which a reasonable person in the position of the appellant would have taken precautions. The primary judge held that the appellant failed to give the respondent adequate warnings and that the appellant was liable in negligence for the injury sustained by the respondent

ELEMENTS OF NEGLIGENCE A Duty of Care Is Owed A defendant will only be held liable, in negligence, ‘in circumstances where the law imposes a duty of such care.’ The occupier of a premises owes a duty of care to ‘take reasonable care for the safety’ of all entrants and is said to be any person who exercises

haemorrhage and was unfit to drive. He battled with a stationary van and with a parked vehicle. The court held that he had continued to drive after he had suffered a seizure which affected his reactions and was negligent in doing so. Therefore, a person might escape liability if his actions at the relevant time were wholly beyond defendant’s control. As well as it is automatism . The automatism test important from criminal law later disapproved by the Court of Appeal. Anyway, attorney-general’s