Law of Tort Assignment.
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.' 4 The Human Rights Act 1998 gives 'further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights.' 5 The aim of the Human Rights Act is as stated in section 6 (1), 'courts should
'The existence of a duty of care is ultimately a question of policy'. Discuss.
'The existence of a duty of care is ultimately a question of policy'. Discuss. In previous years, the concept of duty of care has been applied by various courts to act as a control device in order to determine and limit the categories of who can bring claims in negligence and in what circumstances. Worryingly, judges have shown the ability to strike out cases by deciding that a case is non-actionable and this ability has mostly been exercised in cases concerning public policy. It is here where it is seen that a duty of care will only exist if it does not run contrary to the ideas of public policy. Policy has played an important part in limiting the scope of the duty of care. So is the existence of a duty of care, ultimately a question of policy? To a certain extent, it can be seen that the existence of a duty of care, is ultimately a question of policy. Until very recently courts have has discretion as to whether or not to attach a duty of care to a particular public body and it is these decisions which have been influenced by policy arguments and decisions. This approach has been adopted particularly where there is an overriding public or general interest which awards defendants a certain degree of immunity from litigation. Courts have often justified their actions of not imposing a duty of care upon public bodies using arguments that reflect their concerns should a
