1 / 11

Introduction to the Law of Tort

Negligence and the Duty of Care . Introduction to the Law of Tort. Content Law of Tort Definition. Purpose. Importance and Scope of Negligence. Negligence Criteria Overview. Duty of Care. TORTS A wrongful act; Against an individual or corporate body and his or her or its property;

fulton-watts
Download Presentation

Introduction to the Law of Tort

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Negligence and the Duty of Care Introduction to the Law of Tort

  2. Content Law of Tort Definition. Purpose. Importance and Scope of Negligence. Negligence Criteria Overview. Duty of Care.

  3. TORTS A wrongful act; Against an individual or corporate body and his or her or its property; Which gives rise to a civil action; Usually for damages. Does not require existence of a contract for there to be liability.

  4. Purpose of the law of tort To provide compensation for the injured person. Generally liability is based on fault. Motive of defendant in committing the tort generally irrelevant.

  5. NEGLIGENCE Claimant must satisfy the following criteria: Duty of Care Breach of Duty Resultant Damage.

  6. DUTY OF CARE Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]. Neighbour Test: Duty to take reasonable care To avoid acts or omissions Which you could reasonably foresee May injure your neighbour

  7. WHO IS YOUR NEIGHBOUR? Proximity Test Any person so closely and directly affected by your act; That you ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected; When you are directing your minds to the acts or omissions in question.

  8. HISTORY OF THE TEST Anns v Merton LBC [1978]. Two tier test: Sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood between claimant and defendant? If so, any factors which should limit scope of duty (i.e. public policy reasons)?

  9. HISTORY (2) Junior Brooks v Veitchi [1983] Peabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay Parkinson [1984] Leigh and Sillivan v Aliakmon Shipping [1986] Yuen Kun Yeu v AG of Hong Kong [1987] Murphy v Brentwood DC [1990]

  10. CURRENT APPROACH Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990]. Was harm caused reasonably foreseeable? Was there a relationship of proximity between defendant and claimant? Is it just and fair to impose a duty of care in all the circumstances? See also John Munroe (Acrylics) v London Fire Brigade (1997)

  11. “The trend of authorities has been to discourage the assumption that anyone who suffers loss is prima facie entitled to compensation from a person….whose act or omission can be said to have caused it. The default position is that he is not.” Lord Hoffman in Stovin v Wise [1996].

More Related