11

Introduction to the Law of TortIntroduction to the Law of Tort

Negligence Negligence

and the Duty of and the Duty of CareCare

22

Content Content

1.1. Law of TortLaw of Torti.i. Definition.Definition.ii.ii. Purpose.Purpose.iii.iii. Importance and Scope of Negligence.Importance and Scope of Negligence.

2.2. NegligenceNegligencei.i. Criteria Overview.Criteria Overview.ii.ii. Duty of Care.Duty of Care.

33

TORTSTORTS

A wrongful act;A wrongful act;

Against an individual or corporate body Against an individual or corporate body and his or her or its property;and his or her or its property;

Which gives rise to a civil action;Which gives rise to a civil action;

Usually for damages.Usually for damages.

Does not require existence of a contract Does not require existence of a contract for there to be liability.for there to be liability.

44

2.2. Purpose of the law of tortPurpose of the law of tort

i.i. To provide compensation for the To provide compensation for the injured person.injured person.

ii.ii. Generally liability is based on Generally liability is based on fault.fault.

iii.iii. Motive of defendant in committing Motive of defendant in committing the tort generally irrelevant.the tort generally irrelevant.

55

NEGLIGENCENEGLIGENCE

Claimant must satisfy the following criteria:Claimant must satisfy the following criteria:

i.i. Duty of CareDuty of Care

ii.ii. Breach of DutyBreach of Duty

i.i. Resultant Damage.Resultant Damage.

66

DUTY OF CAREDUTY OF CARE

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932Donoghue v Stevenson [1932].].

Neighbour Test:Neighbour Test:

i.i. Duty to take reasonable careDuty to take reasonable care

ii.ii. To avoid acts or omissionsTo avoid acts or omissions

iii.iii. Which you could reasonably foreseeWhich you could reasonably foresee

iv.iv. May injure your neighbourMay injure your neighbour

77

WHO IS YOUR NEIGHBOUR?WHO IS YOUR NEIGHBOUR?

Proximity TestProximity Test

i.i. Any person so closely and directly Any person so closely and directly affected by your act;affected by your act;

ii.ii. That you ought reasonably to have That you ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so them in contemplation as being so affected;affected;

iii.iii. When you are directing your minds When you are directing your minds to the acts or omissions in question.to the acts or omissions in question.

88

HISTORY OF THE TESTHISTORY OF THE TEST

Anns v Merton LBC [1978].Anns v Merton LBC [1978]. Two tier test:Two tier test:

i.i. Sufficient relationship of Sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood proximity or neighbourhood between claimant and between claimant and defendant? defendant?

ii.ii. If so, any factors which should If so, any factors which should limit scope of duty (i.e. public limit scope of duty (i.e. public policy reasons)?policy reasons)?

99

HISTORY (2)HISTORY (2)

Junior Brooks v Veitchi [1983]Junior Brooks v Veitchi [1983]

Peabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay Peabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay Parkinson [1984]Parkinson [1984]

Leigh and Sillivan v Aliakmon Shipping [1986]Leigh and Sillivan v Aliakmon Shipping [1986]

Yuen Kun Yeu v AG of Hong Kong [1987]Yuen Kun Yeu v AG of Hong Kong [1987]

Murphy v Brentwood DC [1990]Murphy v Brentwood DC [1990]

1010

CURRENT APPROACHCURRENT APPROACH

Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990].Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990].

i.i. Was harm caused reasonably Was harm caused reasonably foreseeable?foreseeable?

ii.ii. Was there a relationship of proximity Was there a relationship of proximity between defendant and claimant?between defendant and claimant?

iii.iii. Is it just and fair to impose a duty of Is it just and fair to impose a duty of care in all the circumstances?care in all the circumstances?

See also See also John Munroe (Acrylics) v London John Munroe (Acrylics) v London Fire Brigade (1997)Fire Brigade (1997)

1111

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

Lord Hoffman in Lord Hoffman in Stovin v Wise [1996].Stovin v Wise [1996].