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

Law of Tort Assignment.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Law of Tort Assignment (i) Since the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, it seems that some areas of tort law have been affected by the Act to a great extent. One specific element of tort law that has been affected is 'duty of care in negligence.' The tort of negligence may signify 'whereby persons who by carelessness have caused damage to others and may be held liable to pay compensation.' 1 However, it is not always the case when 'careless conduct which causes damage will give rise to an action.' 2 As this essay will focus on the impact of the Human Rights Act on duty of care in negligence, it is necessary to determine 'whether the type of loss suffered by the claimant in the particular way in which it occurred can ever be actionable,' 3 as this may play a great role in the development of the tort of negligence. Before a duty of care is held to exist, the requirement established in Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568 must be satisfied: (a) 'Foreseeability of the damage; (b) A sufficiently 'proximate' relationship between the parties; and (c) Even where (a) and (b) are satisfied it must be 'just and reasonable' to impose such a duty.' ...read more.

Middle

In this case, 'allegations of negligence were made against the defendants about the treatment of a child after he had been taken into care. The House of lord held that it was not appropriate to strike out the claim as it was not just and reasonable to impose a duty of care without hearing the evidence.' 22 Therefore the effect of Osman is that in future cases, 'it will no longer be permissible simply to have action struck out on policy grounds as this would contravene Article 6 of the European Convention.' 23 However, there is an objection to the Article 6 view in that 'everyone should get their day in court and it will become much harder for public authorities to settle actions and reduce their costs,' 24 although there is a 'refrain of English negligence law that recognition of a duty of care will open the floodgates of litigation.' 25 The case of Z v United Kingdom 'arose out of the House of lords' decision in X v Bedfordhsire CC [1995] 2 AC 633, in that it was not fair, just and reasonable to admit a duty of care.' 26 In Z v UK, the 'European Court of human rights acknowledged that its decision in Osman v UK had proceeded on a misunderstanding of the English tort of negligence and the procedural rules which permit a party to apply to the court to strike out a claim on the basis that it discloses no reasonable cause of action.' ...read more.

Conclusion

2001 p.9 22 Cooke, J, Law of Tort, 5th Edition (Longman Publishing) 2001 p. 43 23 Cooke, J, Law of Tort, 5th Edition (Longman Publishing) 2001 p. 43 24 Cooke, J, Law of Tort, 5th Edition (Longman Publishing) 2001 p. 43 25 Wright, J, Tort Law and Human Rights, (Hart Publishing) 2001 p.44 26 Fairgrieve, D, 'Pushing back the Boundaries of Public Authority liability: Tort Law enters the Classroom,' (2002) Public Law p.300 27 Jones, M, Textbook on Torts, 8th Edition (Oxford University Press: New York) 2002 p.49 28A. C. L. Davies, 'The European Convention and negligence Actions: Osman Reviewed,' (2001) 117 The Law Quarterly Review p. 521 29 Jones, M, Textbook on Torts, 8th Edition (Oxford University Press: New York) 2002 p.49 3028A. C. L. Davies, 'The European Convention and negligence Actions: Osman Reviewed,' (2001) 117 The Law Quarterly Review p. 523 31 A. C. L. Davies, 'The European Convention and negligence Actions: Osman Reviewed,' (2001) 117 The Law Quarterly Review p. 522 32 Kidner, R, Casebook on Torts, 7th Edition (Oxford University Press) 2002 p.70 33Gearty, C. A, 'Unravelling Osman' (2001) 64 The Modern Law Review p. 186 34 Jones, M, Textbook on Torts, 8th Edition (Oxford University Press: New York) 2002 p.43 35 Fairgrieve, D, 'Pushing back the Boundaries of Public Authority liability: Tort Law enters the Classroom,' (2002) Public Law p.301 36 Wright, J, Tort Law and Human Rights, (Hart Publishing) 2001 p.34 1 020973391 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Tort Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

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

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

5 star(s)

This is a very good essay. The level of detail is extraordinary.

5 Stars.

Marked by teacher Edward Smith 23/10/2013

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 University Degree Tort Law essays

  1. Liability In Negligence Problem case. Advise Greenwichshire Police whether they owe a duty ...

    This was illustrated in Dulieu V White [1901]13 where it distinguished between a primary and secondary victim. A claimant who has direct involvement in the incident and is within the range of foreseeable physical injury would qualify as a primary victim.

  2. A Critical Examination of the Concept of Breach of Duty of Care

    Negligence is a 'legal cause' of damage if it directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such damage, so it can reasonably be said that if not for the negligence, the loss, injury or damage would not have occurred.

  1. Consider the relationship between the torts of private nuisance and negligence and in doing ...

    sense is not essential...And although negligence may not be necessary, fault of some kind is almost always necessary and fault generally involves foreseeability.'5 An example of this can be seen in Bolton v Stone6. In this case the claimant Miss Stone sued a cricket club for negligence after she was

  2. To what difficulties had the use of a 'but-for' test of factual causation in ...

    This argument was rejected too. Lord Mackay said that the reason for this is that when the patient arrived at hospital it was too late already and so there was no loss of a chance to lose. But what if there is a case where there is no such certainty

  1. "A duty of care arises not merely when damage is reasonably foreseeable, but when ...

    be such that judges are not free to decide accordingly without worrying of consequences. However, steps have been taken by the practice of "check and balance" by the Doctrine of Separation of Power therefore this immunity is essential to keep the peace.

  2. How Does the Law Justify the Imposition of Strict Liabilty For Some Offences?

    Courts are inconsistent in their justifications of imposing or not imposing strict liability e.g. Lim Chin Aik v R. In some cases the courts expect extreme precaution as was demonstrated in the case of Smedleys v Breed. In this case "d" was convicted under the Food and Drugs Act 1955,

  1. Discuss the justification for vicarious liability and whether the recent developments in case law ...

    The Mersey Docks principle has enabled the courts to choose between two possible employees. Today, in Viasystems (Tyneside) Limited v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Limited & Others, the principle of double indemnity was introduced. It was considered to be more appropriate to use the principles of double indemnity to share principles between two possible employers.

  2. Duty of care and economic loss - major cases.

    duty to take care to avoid the escape of the virus was due to the foreseeable fact that the virus might infect cattle in the neighbourhood and thus was owed to owners of cattle, but, as the plaintiffs were not owners of cattle, no such duty was owed to them

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