• 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

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    In the Journal International Law Review an article titled 'Who would be a referee?' examines the Court of Appeal decision in Vowles and the issues raised as to the duty of care and how the training of referees may now differ.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Homicide Act 1957

    3 star(s)

    where the brain becomes damaged from taking alcohol and that the defendant involuntarily took alcohol. There are 2 types of Manslaughter - voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary manslaughter is an offence that could be referred to as murder except for certain circumstances or situations, which reduce the liability of the D,

  1. What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible ...

    The terrorist would be convicted of manslaughter under the Nedrick/Woollin direction, which although may result in the terrorist being sentenced to life, still does not seem acceptable. Therefore, the Nedrick/Woollin direction on intent does allow those who should be convicted of murder, to escape the charge of murder in favour of manslaughter.


    "Material damage" must be "a physical deterioration of the property which must be visible to ordinary persons without recourse to scientific evidence". There must, however, be a diminution in the value of the property. An example is in St. Helen's Smelting Co..

  1. British Law in Health and Social Care

    Negligent conduct is that which falls below an acceptable standard, this standard has been established in order to protect others from an unreasonable risk of harm. Not every type of carelessness is defined as legal negligence. There are four elements that need to be proved for an action or inaction

  2. Free essay

    Kates case falls under civil litigation in the category of negligence. She was served ...

    In theory therefore Kate has a strong case against the Dublin bar and the manufacturers since they are legally liable to her. In practice however she may be faced with the challenge of lodging a case against a strong opponent who is willing to do anything to defend their reputation.

  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. Contributory negligence and volenti non fit injuria are very similar in nature and effect. ...

    In the case of Evans v Souls Garage, the claimant had injured himself by inhaling fumes from petrol. He successfully sued the defendant for negligently selling petrol to him but the damages were reduced by a third for his contributory negligence.

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