NEGLIGENCE - BREACH OF DUTY
AMY KEMP NEGLIGENCE - BREACH OF DUTY 04-02-04 Angela had recently been taken on as an adult volunteer helper with an outdoor activity centre. She was making her first trip with a group of 10-12 year old girls. Beth, an experienced leader, asked Angela to supervise the children building a rope bridge across a river. Angela had had no previous training or experience in making rope bridges, but she agreed to supervise on her own. When Angela's group of children started to cross the bridge that they had built, it collapsed, injuring Delia, aged 10. Angela had told the children the bridge was safe to use. (a) Explaining the relevant rules of law, decide whether Beth owed a duty of care to Delia in this situation. Lord Atkin originally determined how a duty of care could be identified in his 'neighbour principle.' In Donoghue V Stevenson [1932] he said, "You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour." It was later established in Caparo V Dickman [1990], the test for duty of care must be answered in three stages. The first of these is the same as the Neighbour test. When applying this test to Beth, we must consider if the injuries Delia suffered were foreseeable and, as she knew that Angela had no previous experience, it would be fair to assume that she would
Breach of statutory duty- tort law
Most statutes passed by the Parliament impose duties on individuals, public bodies or organizations. The tort of statutory negligence is concerned with finding out whether breach of those duties set out by parliament gives rise to individuals taking private action. For an action to be successful in the tort of breach of statutory duty the claimant must show that the statutory duty allows him/her to sue for damages and that duty was owed to the. The claimant should also be able to prove the defendant's guilt of breach of statutory duty and that he suffered loss (es) as a result of the breach. The claimant should also be able to prove that the damage was of a type that the statute was intending to prevent. The purpose of this essay is to advise Jolene and Kenton as to whether they have a claim against Borsetshire County Council under breach of statutory duty. The courts did outline that careless performance of a statutory duty does not automatically give rise to a right of action unless there is a common law duty of care in negligence as set out in X (minors) v. Bedfordshire County Council1. Most statutes do not expressly state whether or not individuals have the right of action in the case of breach of statutory duty. At the same time it should be noted that not all breaches of statutory duties will lead to damages being awarded to the claimant. To try and shed light on the
To successfully pursue a claim in the Tort of negligence there are three elements that need to be fulfilled. These are a legal duty of care, a breach of that duty and damage suffered as a result of that breach
Tort 1 LW1018 Coursework Semester 1 2005-2006 To successfully pursue a claim in the Tort of negligence there are three elements that need to be fulfilled. These are a legal duty of care, a breach of that duty and damage suffered as a result of that breach. For all of the possible claims in question, a duty of care firstly needs to be established. The development for a general test establishing a legal duty of care began with Lord Atkin's judgment in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932].1 This case is particularly important. This is due to the fact that prior to this case there would have been no remedy available for claimants in the same situation as Mrs Donoghue. This was found in the previous case of Winterbottom v Wright [1842].2 Where the courts held that there could be no legal duty of care established in the absence of a contractual relationship. Mrs Donoghue did not purchase the ginger beer herself and had no contract hence was unable to sue in her own right. Mrs Donoghue decided to sue the manufacturer of the ginger beer for his negligence. It was held in this case that there could be a remedy available in the law of tort. The manufacturer owed a legal duty of care to the ultimate consumer of his product. From this case the neighbour principle was established. In his judgment Lord Atkin stated: ''You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you
A Critical Examination of the Concept of Breach of Duty of Care
NEGLIGENCE1 Negligence is a legal concept in the common law legal systems usually used to achieve compensation for injuries (not accidents). Negligence is a type of tort or delict (also known as a civil wrong). However, the concept is sometimes used in criminal law as well. Negligence is generally defined as conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another individual from a foreseeable risk of harm. Through civil litigation, if an injured person proves that another person acted negligently to cause his injury, he can recover damages to compensate for his harm. Proving a case for negligence can potentially entitle the injured plaintiff to compensation for harm to their body, property, mental well-being, financial status, or intimate relationships. However, because negligence cases are very fact-specific, this general definition does not fully explain the concept of when the law will require one person to compensate another for losses caused by accidental injury. Further, the law of negligence at common law is only one aspect of the law of liability. Although resulting damages must be proved in order to recover compensation in a negligence action, the nature and extent of those damages are not the primary focus of negligence cases. Negligence is a tort which is the breach of a duty of care imposed by common or statute law,
Tortious liability arises from the breach of duty primarily fixed by law; such duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressable by an action for unliquidated damages.
TORT 1 Coursework Negligence consists of three elements: a legal duty to take care; breach of that duty and damaged suffered as a consequence of that breach. Of which a common definition is: "Tortious liability arises from the breach of duty primarily fixed by law; such duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressable by an action for unliquidated damages." Tort of negligence importance begins with Lord Atkin's ground breaking judgement in Donoghue v Steveson [1932] AC 532. Where the claimant argued that she had suffered shock and gastroentertritis after drinking ginger beer from an opaque bottle out of which a decomposing snail had fallen when the dregs were poured. A friend brought her the drink so she couldn't sue in her own right in contract. The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed duty of care, liable in negligence to the consumer of its products. Lord Atkin's judgment contained critical elements; negligence would be proved by satisfying a three part test: 'The existence of a duty of care owed to the claimant by the defendant' 'A breach that duty by falling below the appropriate standard of care' 'Damage caused by the defendant breach of duty that was not too remote a consequence of the breach' In order for Crispin to successfully claim in negligence, he has to prove that a Duty of Care existed between Sun Loungers Syndicate and
Assisting a trustee's breach of fiduciary duty.
"Where a person assists a trustee in the breach of a fiduciary duty owed to the beneficiaries, he may be held liable, both in equity by way of knowing assistance, or at common law by way of one of the economic torts. The adoption by the House of Lords in Twinsectra v Yardley of the criminal test of dishonesty as the basis of liability in knowing assistance has made the common law route a more attractive means of obtaining recovery from such an accessory." Discuss. If a stranger knowingly and dishonestly assists a trustee in a breach of trust he will be liable for accessory liability. In the case of Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244, assistance was described as one of two limbs constituting accessory liability. Knowing assistance is the equitable action for obtaining recovery from someone who has assisted in a breach of trust (Baughen, 2002). After Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan [1995] 2 AC 378, knowing assistance is now more properly identified as 'dishonest assistance' (Speirs, 2002). Lord Nicholls in Tan stated that dishonesty is the touchstone of liability for knowing assistance (at para.387). The decision of the Privy Council in Tan and its acceptance by the House of Lords in Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley and others [1999] Lloyd's Rep Bank 438 has brought about an important shift in the law on accessory liability (Moffat, 2005). Twinsectra Ltd lent money to Mr
NEGLIGENCE & DUTY OF CARE - The leading case in Negligence is the case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
The leading case in Negligence is the case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) This case explains that, Mrs Donoghue and her friend went to a cafe in Paisley. At the cafe, Mrs Donoghues' friend bought her a drink which was a ginger beer float consisting of ginger beer that was in an opaque bottle. After Mrs Donoghue drank out of the drink in a beer cup, her friend topped up the drink, and then they found in the ginger beer bottle a decomposed remains of a snail. Mrs Donoghue claimed that the memories of seeing the snail in the ginger beer she had already drunk made her ill. Mrs Donoghue could not sue the retailer of the ginger beer for breach of contract because she was not the one that bought the beer herself this is because the contract had been made between the retailer and her friend. She therefore sued against the manufacturer in tort as it was not worth suing the retailer who had only sold the drink to them. The neighbour test This was brought about by Lord Atkins in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932). Lord Atkins stated that there must be some general conception of relations giving rise to a duty of care. The rule was that a person must love his neighbour which became in law that you must not injure you neighbour. The question was that "who then in law is my neighbour? The answer was that anyone who is closely and directly affected by your act, to reasonably have
Torts: How Satisfactorily have the courts used the control devices of duty of care, breach of duty, and causation of damage to limit liability in the tort of negligence. Discuss with reference to the following types of claim: personal injury, property dam
How Satisfactorily have the courts used the control devices of duty of care, breach of duty, and causation of damage to limit liability in the tort of negligence. Discuss with reference to the following types of claim: personal injury, property damage, psychiatric loss, and pure economic loss. Introduction: To quote Winfield and Jolowicz, the tort of negligence can be defined as 'the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage, undesired by the defendant, to the plaintiff.' Therefore three primary elements must satisfied for there to be a successful claim in negligence. Firstly, the defendant must have owed a duty of care. Secondly, this duty of care must have been breached and thirdly, as a consequence of the defendants breach, the claimant must have suffered personal injury, property damage or psychiatric loss (which is not too remote). The duty of Care: In deciding whether the defendant owes a duty of care, the Caparo test1 is crucial I.e. it is now the leading case in deciding where a duty of care is owed and has overridden the neighbour principle defined in Donaghue v Stephenson2 (reasonable foresight). Therefore, provided that damage can be foreseen and the parties have a proximate relationship and the courts have agreed that it is 'fair, just and reasonable' to impose a duty of care (taking into account policy considerations), a claim in negligence
'The concept of 'duty of care' in Negligence-An independant tort'
NEGLIGENCE - DUTY OF CARE EXISTENCE OF A DUTY Before 1932 there was no generalised duty of care in negligence. The tort did exist and was applied in particular situations where the courts had decided that a duty should be owed, eg, road accidents, bailments or dangerous goods. In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, Lord Atkin attempted to lay down a general principle which would cover all the circumstances where the courts had already held that there could be liability for negligence. He said: "The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question." This test has been criticised as being too wide but it made it easier for lawyers to argue that there should be liability for negligently causing harm in new situations, not previously covered by case law. In 1970, Lord Reid said that Lord Atkin's dictum ought to apply unless there was some justification or
Negligence law case analysis. As a customer, Olivia injured by an invalid carriage (Emmas) when she was shopping in Ploymart. Was there a breach of duty on the basis of a failure to protect?
Part 1 The relevant law Apparently, the law of Negligence would be involved in the first case. There are three matters for the tort of negligence: a legal duty of care, the defendant breached this duty and a reasonably foreseeable damage suffered as a consequence of this breach. The standard of care is required in the tort of negligence. A reasonable person is a prerequisite for the standard of care (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks), otherwise, the person is hypothetical (Glasgow Corporation v Muir). If these requirements could be satisfied, the negligence can be proved. Whether a duty of care exists In this case, Olivia was shopping in Polymart therefore the relationship between two parties is customer relationship. Besides, Emma and Olivia were shopping in Ploymart at the same time so the relationship is similar to road user/ other road users which have already been established in law. These relationships are close enough to set off a duty of care which relates to the 'neighbour' principle in (Donoghue v Stevenson) -"a reasonable care should be taken by a person to avert acts or omissions which would directly induce reasonably foreseeable injury towards someone." (Maclntyre, 2008) However, the duty requires to be imposed reasonably and fairly (Caparo v Dickman). As a result, Emma and Polymart owe Olivia a duty of care. Whether there was a breach of duty As a customer,
