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 essay...

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?

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.

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

The above preview is unformatted text

Found what you're looking for?

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

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Over 180,000 student essays
  • Every subject and level covered
  • Thousands of essays marked by teachers

Related University Degree Tort Law

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

    Some argued that this is far from being closely linked and sexually abusing children could be said to be the complete opposite of the job of looking after them. In Dubai Aluminium v Salaam (2002), the House of Lords confirmed that the correct test was whether there was close and direct connection between the employeeâs duties and the criminal acts.

  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. Tort Law Essay . The purpose of this essay will be to advise on ...

    The case of West & Son and Another v. Shephard[19] held that a woman who due to an accident had become permanently bedridden was entitled to £ 17,500 in general damages since she had lost virtually all amenities of life.

  2. The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 137, Liability for Psychiatric Illness[1] made radical changes ...

    Next category covered under psychiatric injury is mere bystanders. This was established in the case of Bourhill v Young41 where Lord Porter42 stated, "the driver of a car or vehicle, even though careless, is entitled to assume that the ordinary frequenter of the streets has sufficient fortitude to endure....the noise

  1. The principle requirements of the tort of negligence.

    The degree of care to be expected depends on a consideration of what a reasonable man, careful for the safety of his neighbour, would do. This requires consideration of the balance between the degree of the likelihood that harm will occur, and the cost and practicability of measures needed to

  2. 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

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

    as long as the harm is of a type which was reasonably foreseeable. In this sense, the neck fractured is foreseeable.

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

    law, because despite the fact that they employed the employee, who was negligent, his negligence was too remote from the plaintiff's injury. On appeal, the court agreed, however, it was divided when it came time to explain the reason why the defendant was not liable.

  • Over 180,000 essays
    written by students
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to write
    your own great essays

Marked by a teacher

This essay has been marked by one of our great teachers. You can read the full teachers notes when you download the essay.

Peer reviewed

This essay has been reviewed by one of our specialist student essay reviewing squad. Read the full review on the essay page.

Peer reviewed

This essay has been reviewed by one of our specialist student essay reviewing squad. Read the full review under the essay preview on this page.