• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

negligence in tort

Extracts from this document...


LW1008 OBLIGATIONS 1 Negligence in tort has various meanings. It may refer to the tort of negligence or it may refer to careless behaviour. A person who totally disregards the safety of others but does not injure them is not guilty of negligence, although they may be morally reprehensible. On the other hand, the person who tries their best but fall below the standard set by the court and causes any damage will be liable.1 Negligence is judged by an objective standard set, where the court will look at what a 'responsible man or woman' would have done in the defendant's position. An example of this is in the case of Nettleship v Weston (1971)2 , the defendant was a learner driver who was given lessons by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was injured as a result of the defendant's negligent driving. It was held that all drivers, including learning drivers, would be judged by the standards of the average competent driver. Duty, breach, causation and damage are the elements that together make up any successful negligence claim. If the claimant wants to win in a negligence action, some certain points must be proven such as that the defendant owed them a duty of care; that the defendant was in breach of that duty; and that the claimant suffered damage caused by the breach of duty, which was not too remote. ...read more.


If negligence is alleged against a general practitioner, the claimant can sue the doctor directly, as general practitioners are independent. If the patient has been referred to a hospital or has been admitted for emergency treatment. They may be able to proceed against the negligent individual, the relevant health authority or both. The negligence action against a doctor is no different to any other negligence case. The claimant must prove that a duty of care was owed to them, that this was broken and that reasonably foreseeable damage was caused as a result. The question of whether duty of care exists is not in dispute. The only problem is what the duty is, i.e. what did the doctor undertake to do, and when the duty came into existence. Dr Green has fallen below the standard of care required of him. As Dr Green was a junior doctor, he would still be expected to comply with the duties of a doctor. Shamilla was Dr Green's patient and so he had a duty towards his patient to look after him and give him the right treatment. Dr Green was expected what a reasonable doctor would do in the situation. ...read more.


Where the damages claimed by the claimant consist of or include a claim for damages or personal injuries, the limitation period is three years under section 11 of the Limitations Act 1980. However, in Cartledge v E Jobling & Sons Ltd (1963), the plaintiff contracted pneumoconiosis as a result of the defendant's breach of duty. He did not know he had the disease until well after the three-year time period has expired. It was held that his action was statute barred. The damage occurred when the lung issue was scarred, although a medical examination might not have revealed the damage at that stage. The obvious injustice of this decision was almost immediately reversed by statute (now the Limitation Act 1980 s 11(4)). This allowed the plaintiff to claim within three years of the date of knowledge. Knowledge may either be actual or constructive (s 14 (3)). If the claimant has symptoms of an illness and fails to seek medical advice, then they will have constructive knowledge. However, if they have sought medical advice but the doctor has failed to ascertain the appropriate facts and diagnose the condition, and then time will not run out against them. The court is given a power to disapply the provisions relating to personal injuries or death (s 33). ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Questions related to the tort of negligence.

    3 star(s)

    and Elvis have a master-servant relationship, leaving Freddy free to sue either or both of them. He might also have to prove that Darratts were liable as occupiers of the property to make sure that he was reasonably safe. However, it seems that if Darratts were building the house to

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Homicide Act 1957

    3 star(s)

    Woolin bought about a 2-part test to be considered in murder cases, which is to ask whether death or serious harm was a virtual certainty of D's actions and whether D appreciated that such was the case. Provocation is defined in S.3 of the Homicide Act 1957; a defendant must show that he or she was provoked (R v.

  1. Law- Negligence

    In Caparo v. Dickman [1990], a case which was in contrast to Smith v. Bush, and "tightened the rules". Under Caparo v Dickman, the defendant must be aware that his statement will be communicated to the plaintiff either as an individual or as a member of an identifiable class and in connection with a specific transaction.

  2. Gross negligence and recklessness.

    They acquitted on the grounds that the risk had to be obvious to that particular defendant. The Divisional Court allowed the prosecutor's appeal - the defendant was reckless if the risk was one that was obvious to a reasonably prudent person.


    An example is in St. Helen's Smelting Co.. -v- Tipping (1865), where the claimant's garden shrubs were damaged by fumes from the defendant's copper-smelting plant resulting in considerable diminution in the value of the property. And also illustrated in Spicer -v- Smee (1946), the court remarked that "Private nuisance arises out of a state of things on one

  2. Discussing Homicide - muder - actus reus.

    a result of the unreasonable decision of the victim not to accept medical help.' The third exception covers attempts to escape. So, if the defendant's conduct is not the operative cause of death, but it causes the victim to try to escape from the defendant, then the defendant will be held to have committed the actus reus.

  1. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    This includes trespassers and those who exceed their permission. It sets out the occupier's duty of care to trespassers. The duty is to take reasonable care to see that the trespasser is protected from dangers that the occupier knows about and can reasonably expect a trespasser to encounter. An occupier will only owe trespassers a duty to care for their safety: 1.

  2. Tort law assignment. Brian fell against the standard of care a reasonable man would ...

    So, Brian owes John a duty of care as he is a part qualified accountant and he gave out advice about buying Brightwater shares, which is advice relating to the business of accountancy. The second guideline under Hedley Byrne has been established and Brian owes John a duty of care

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work