• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  9. 9
    9
  10. 10
    10
  11. 11
    11
  12. 12
    12
  13. 13
    13
  14. 14
    14
  15. 15
    15
  16. 16
    16
  17. 17
    17
  18. 18
    18
  19. 19
    19
  20. 20
    20
  21. 21
    21
  22. 22
    22

To succeed in a negligence action in tort, the claimant must prove three things

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Samantha Freeman Tort BA Hons Legal Studies Year 2 Question 1 To succeed in a negligence action in tort, the claimant must prove the following three things: 1. That the defendant owed a duty of care. 2. That the defendant was in breach of that duty. 3. That the claimant suffered damage caused by the breach of duty. Lord Atkin defines duty of care, as "you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions, which you can reasonably foresee would likely to injure your neighbour." To decide whether there is an existence of a duty of care, it involves applying one or more of the following: foresight, proximity and consideration of justice and reasonableness. Foreseeability means that the defendant must have foreseen some damage towards the claimant. A case that shows foreseeability and the neighbour test is Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] A.C 562; 20 M.L.R. 1 it was held in this case, that there could be a remedy in tort as a manufacture has a duty of care to the consumer, also if it is foreseeable that the claimant may be injured then the defendant will be held liable. Proximity will vary from case to case, as it will be examined differently in each individual case. An example of a case, which shows this, is Bourhill v. Young [1943] A.C. 92 in this case the claimant was not within the area of impact so there was no proximity, so the House of Lords held the claimant was owed no duty of care. Justice and reasonableness is seen as the reasonable man test. Would someone else do in the same situation do the same? This was shown by the case Caparo Industries PLC v. Dickman [1990] 2 A.C. 605 in which Lord Roskill commented; "It has now to be accepted that there is no simple formula or touchstone" in our scenario was Henry driving negligently? ...read more.

Middle

There are three types of nuisance. Statutory nuisance is concerned with central governments concern for health, so statues such as The Noise Act 1996 and The Environmental Protection Act 1990 Part III cover it. The nuisance that this question was concerned with to advise Jerry is public and private nuisance. Public nuisance is "an lawful act or omission which materially affects the reasonable comforts and convenience of life of a class of Her majesty's Subjects" defined in the case Attorney General v. PYA Quarries [1957]. It is normally a crime, but an individual can sue on the grounds that they have suffered special damage. A case that shows public nuisance is Attorney General v. PYA Quarries [1957] 2 QB 169. In this case dust and vibrations from quarrying operations affected local residents, due to the fact so many residents were affected it was classed as a public nuisance. Halsey v. Esso Petroleum Co Ltd 1961 shows special damage. In this case the defendants operated a oil distributing depot, the claimant claimed that acid smuts were damaging their washing. The smuts also caused damage to the car; due to the special damage the claimant could make a claim under public nuisance, and did not need an interest in land. In respect of public nuisance, and advise to Jerry in respect of public nuisance would be that he could argue it was a public nuisance, but would need that the other residents felt this way. He would also need show that he had suffered special circumstances, as seen in the case Halsey v. Esso Petroleum Co Ltd 1961, but I don't think Jerry could show this. I do not think he could sue under public nuisance. "Private nuisance is an unlawful interference with a persons use or enjoyment of land, or some right over or in connection with it" (Cooke 243). A case that shows this Sadleigh - Denfield v. ...read more.

Conclusion

This was shown in the case Tuberville v. Savage [1969], but Jonas did not neutralise his action. If Jonas was found liable for assault and battery, he may be able to use the defence of contributory negligence, Barnes v. Nayer [1986] as Pc Nat did not know that Jonas was congratulating Didier. The third issue of trespass to the person is false imprisonment. False imprisonment is an unlawful justification of constraint on another's freedom of movement, it must be completely deprived. Bird v. Jones [1845] showed this, it was held in this case that there was no false imprisonment, since there was no total restraint. Where a claimants liberty is subject to a reasonable condition, it is not false imprisonment to restrain a claimant, until that condition has been met. Robinson v. Balmain Ferry Co Ltd [1910] held that there was no imprisonment because the condition imposed was a reasonable one in the circumstances. Although knowledge of the restraint at the time is not necessary to succeed in action for false imprisonment. Meering v. Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd [1919] may show Didier liable for false imprisonment by grabbing Jonas's arm for two minutes. Although it may be seen as subject to a reasonable condition, due to the fact Jonas was going to thump Pc Nat and he stopped it from occurring, Didier would be able to use the defence of necessity. The defence of necessity may be valid to trespass to the person my be valid where the defendant acts for the purpose of protecting the claimants own health and safety. This was seen in the case Leigh v. Gladstone [1909]. In this case it was found it was necessary to intervene because they had a duty to the others in their custody. It could be said that Didier acted on behalf of Jonas' safety and the safety of Pc Nat, by falsely imprisoning Jonas. It also stopped Jonas from being liable for battery. If this was applied Didier would not be liable for false imprisonment. I ...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

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. Marked by a teacher

    Problem question on Occupiers liability Act 1957

    3 star(s)

    Nevertheless, Ingrid is aware of the fact that Jane is an amateur inventor and it is therefore reasonably foreseeable that an amateur inventor using petrol substitutes may cause a nuisance to neighbours. Jane Before establishing the liability of Jane it is essential to determine whether her actions are an ongoing

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

    The question asked here is whether or not the defendant use of his land is so unreasonable that it interferes with the claimant's use and enjoyment of land. This is in contrast with the notion of taking reasonable care in negligence where more emphasis is placed on the conduct of the defendant by the standards of a reasonable person.

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

    defendants were justified in not taking further measures to eliminate the risk. In Paris v Stepney Borough Council,23 the claimant who had only one good eye, went completely blind when, during the course of his employment a chip of metal entered his good eye.

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

    As stated previously, the police do owe a duty of care to the protestors at the rally considering their primary purpose of being present there was for their safety and security. The third criteria which must be satisfied is that it must be 'fair, just and reasonable' for such a duty to exist in the light of policy.

  1. Negligence Case. The victims in this problem may have a claim in tort of ...

    In Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd8, the defendant negligently cut an electric cable causing a power cut in plaintiff's factory for 14 hours. Without electricity to heat the plaintiff's furnace, the metal in the furnace solidified and the plaintiff had to shut down the factory.

  2. Duty of Care.

    The plaintiff (actually it is the insurance company) took action against the Home Office as it was vicariously responsible. The HoL held that the Home Office would owe a duty of care. It is not so much control over the 3rd part that gives rise to obligation to act, but

  1. Assisting a trustee's breach of fiduciary duty.

    Bearing in mind how difficult it can be to prove state of mind, the decision in Twinsectra is good news for any defendant accused of knowing assistance in a breach of trust, but bad news for anyone endeavouring to establish liability (Reed, 2002).

  2. McLoughlin v OBrian [1983] AC 410, per Lord Bridge, at 441. Discuss the above ...

    out entirely, at least in those situations where the circumstances of the accident were particularly horrific.[37] Clearly, it is not reasonable to deny a claim if the horrific context could be attribute to the defendant?s negligence and the bystander proved the causal link between the event and the illness was

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