Tort law. In order to pursue a successful claim of negligence, The claimant must be able to prove the three elements.

Authors Avatar by leanneamanda (student)

Tort Law Assignment 1

Part A

By Leanne Bromley

In order to pursue a successful claim of negligence, The claimant must be able to prove the three elements. The claimant must prove the defendant owed them a duty of care as in the case Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562. The claimant must also prove the defendant breached that duty of care as in the case Nettleship v Western [1971 2 QB 691, Also the breach of that duty caused foreseeable damage as in the case Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428. If the claimant is successful in proving all three element, they will be successful in proving negligence in court.

 

The law of negligence was first established in the case Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 in which Lord Atkins explained the neighbor principle and said,

“the rule that you are to love your neighbor becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbor; and the lawyers question, who is my neighbor? Receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoids acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbor. Who then, in law is my neighbor? The persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to acts or omission which are called in question.”

Lord Atkins neighbor principle as been used in a number of cases such as, Anns v Merton London borough Council [1978] AC 782, Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 1 AII ER 568 and Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92, were the three fold test was set, which must show these three elements, harm must be reasonably foreseeable as a result of the defendants conduct, the parties must be in a relationship of proximity and thirdly it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.

Join now!

 

The standard reasonableness of care in negligence never amounts to an absolute duty to prevent harm from others, it set standards, there fore the courts imposed the reasonable man test and if a defendant falls below the reasonable man test he as breach his duty of care for carelessness of others which causes damage as in the case Roberts V Ramsbottom [1980] 1 WLR 823, the classic statement given by Alderson B in Blyth Birmingham Waterworks Co [1856] 11 Ex 781:

Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ...

This is a preview of the whole essay