In order to determine whether the claimant Kevin has any possible tort of negligence claim against the defendants; Miss Harriet, James and Lily, we must first establish whether there was a duty of care owed
Introduction The concept of tort of negligence is difficult to establish, as it may require the claimant to proof damages, intentional behavior or at least recklessness. In order to determine whether the claimant Kevin has any possible tort of negligence claim against the defendants; Miss Harriet, James and Lily, we must first establish whether there was a duty of care owed, breached of duty and whether there was actionable cause of damage. Each defendant plays a different role, thus the decision of whether or not there is a breach of duty owed to Kevin can be decided through: the objective standard of reasonableness, the standard of reasonable child and with the application of the “Bolam test,” as set out in the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee.[1] Kevin and Miss Harriet In order for a claim to be brought against Miss Harriet, we must first establish whether there was actionable damage and if a duty of care is owed. According to Lord Bridge; second criteria of the Caparo test[2], we must recognize if there is a proximate relationship between the parties and determine if it is fair, just and reasonable for a duty of care to be imposed. In this situation because Miss Harriet is Kevin’s teacher, thus responsible for ensuring the safety of her students, there is a strong proximity between the two parties and therefore duty of care is affective.
Contract and Negligence Case law assignment.
Sana ArfanAspects of Contract & NegligenceID: 1199296 Unit 5 – Aspects of Contract and Negligence for Business Assignment 3 Sana Arfan ID: 1199296 Tortious Liability vs. Contractual Liability In a tortious claim the defendant may not have any previous transaction or relationship with the claimant however in contrast to that for contractual liability the defendant and claimant must have a purpose to create legal relations. Elaborating on this further there is supplementary sovereignty in contractual law where as in tortuous liability it is more of an imposed nature. The claimant will receive compensation for damages and expected earnings in the case of contractual liability and in comparison to this the claimant is only entitled to damages in the case of tortuous liability. Another difference is that there is more privacy in the contract in the case of contractual liabilities as the parties who are involved in the contract are the ones who can actually sue for damages as in the case of Atkin v Sounders (1942) whereas in tortuous liabilities any one as a third party who had suffered losses or damages can claim compensation from the defendant whether they are in a legally binding agreement or not. Vicarious Liability Vicarious liability can be defined to be a ‘situation where someone is held responsible for the actions or omissions of another person’ Acas (2009).
Duty of Care Case Study.
2) Duty of care refers to the circumstances and relationships which the law recognises as giving rise to a legal duty to take care. A failure to take such care can result in the defendant being liable to pay damages to a party who is injured or suffers loss as a result of their breach of duty of care. Therefore it is necessary for the claimant to establish that the defendant owed them a duty of care. The existence of a duty of care depends on the type of loss and different legal tests apply to different losses. This lecture considers the position in relation to personal injury and property damage. See the other lectures for psychiatric injury, pure economic loss and defective items. As a road user, Charles has a duty of care to other road users, this includes other vehicles, and pedestrians etc. as can be illustrated in the case Donoghue v Stevenson 1932. For a negligence claim to be upheld there must be a breach in the duty of care, reasonable foreseeability, a degree of proximity between the defendant and the claimant and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose such liability. This is illustrated in the case of Caparo Industries plc v Dickman 1990. It does not appear to be the case the Charles was driving recklessly or carelessly as he was driving “below the speed limit” when Dan appeared on the road. Charles also braked when he saw Dan but the heavy rain may
![McLoughlin v OBrian [1983] AC 410, per Lord Bridge, at 441. Discuss the above statement of Lord Bridge in the context of subsequent developments in the law relating to compensation for psychiatric injury, caused by the negligent actions of a tortfeasor.](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/1209097/listing/1209097_1.jpg)
McLoughlin v OBrian [1983] AC 410, per Lord Bridge, at 441. Discuss the above statement of Lord Bridge in the context of subsequent developments in the law relating to compensation for psychiatric injury, caused by the negligent actions of a tortfeasor.
‘In approaching the question whether the law should, as a matter of policy, define the criterion of liability in negligence for causing psychiatric illness by reference to some test or other than that of reasonable foreseeability it is well to remember that we are concerned only with the question of liability of a defendant who is, ex hypothesi, guilty of fault in causing the death, injury or danger which has in turn triggered the psychiatric illness. A policy which is to be relied on to narrow the scope of the negligent tortfeasor’s duty must be justified by cogent and readily intelligible considerations, and must be capable of defining the appropriate limits of liability by reference to factors which are not arbitrary’. McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] AC 410, per Lord Bridge, at 441. Discuss the above statement of Lord Bridge in the context of subsequent developments in the law relating to compensation for psychiatric injury, caused by the negligent actions of a tortfeasor. Is existing law in this area satisfactory? If not, how might it be improved? Lord Bridge’s statement in McLoughlin can be broken down into two parts. The first part considers the liability in this area of law; the only question should be ‘who is guilty of causing the psychiatric injury’. The second part considers narrowing the floodgate by using policy consideration. His Lordship raised two
LLB CASE ANALYSIS (Law of Contract and Law of Tort)
LLB CASE ANALYSIS (Law of Contract and Law of Tort) ‘The starting point for any rule of remoteness of damage is the familiar notion that a line must be drawn somewhere: it would be unacceptably harsh for every tortfeasor or contract breaker to be responsible for all the consequences which he has caused’.[1] Different tests have been produced through case law which differentiates the liability of defendants; these will be presented throughout the essay. In the Law of Tort there has previously been much controversy surrounding the rules of which should be applied in the instance of remoteness of damage. There are in effect two competing rules namely: the ’directness’ test and the ‘foreseeability’ test[2]. The genesis of the directness test is found within the case of Re Polemis v Furness Withey & Co.[3], whereby a ship was destructed as a result of the negligent actions of stevedores. At first instance the arbitrator held that no liability arose. However, on appeal the defendant was found liable for the direct consequence of their actions, ‘‘it matters not whether the nature of the damage which has sustained is foreseeable as long as its origins can be linked to the relevant act of the defender’[4]; identifying that if the loss made arises directly and naturally from the defendants wrong doing then the claimant’s loss is recoverable in damages. This case
Tort Law Case. It could be argued that in fact both Northwood County Council and the NHS trust could be liable in failing to prevent the negligence that occurred
Frances Mackenzie Turner B1019145 Tort law is mostly formed over previous past case precedents. However it is quite a modernistic approach to law simply because of personal injury, medical claims and road traffic accidents. As a subject it is formed on the concept of Negligence. Negligence is seen as a civil law area, defined as ‘the breach of a legal duty to take care by an inadvertent act or omission that injured another[1]. Due to the injuries Jenny sustained, she could possibly claim compensation through negligence. It could be argued that in fact both Northwood County Council and the NHS trust could be liable in failing to prevent the negligence that occurred, in this instance the attack from Sophie’s dad. To enable a person to be liable for negligence, they must; owe the defendant a duty of care, they must have breached that duty, and lastly the damaged cause by that person must not be too remote. Firstly in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson[2], Lord Atkin established that you owe a duty of care towards your neighbours. However it was questioned, who was deemed as a ‘neighbour’? Lord Atkin replied; “the answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought to reasonably have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.” In affect if the
Tort Coursework Cases -traffic accident and medical cases
Tort Assessed Coursework By Bethany Norris N0382496 Submission Date: 24/02/2012 Word Count: 1500 Tutor: Lynne Shone Introduction To bring a claim for negligence in tort a claimant must prove that a.) the defendant owed them a duty of care, b.) the defendant did not meet the standard of care required, c.) the breach of duty by the defendant caused the harm suffered by the claimant and d.) the loss was not too remote. If one of these elements fails then there can be no claim. Andrea v Bernice A road user owes other road users a duty of care[1]; other road users include pedestrians, motorists and cyclists. A duty is breached when the required standard is not met; in this case the standard is that of a competent driver[2]. Bernice would not be able to use the case of Quinn v Scott [1965] [3] which held that speeding is not necessarily negligent; however, this judgement was made before the introduction of speed limits and so Bernice breached the standard by travelling above the speed limit thereby hindering her ability to stop before hitting Andrea. To establish causation we must look at the facts more closely. To determine whether the defendant caused the harm the “but for” test[4] must be applied. But for Bernice’s negligent driving would Andrea have suffered two broken legs? The answer is no, however, Bernice will be able to use the defence of contributory
Given the difficulties in understanding and applying the tests for establishing novel duties of care in Caparo v Dickman, would it be better to return to the test set out in Anns?
Given the difficulties in understanding and applying the tests for establishing novel duties of care in Caparo v Dickman, would it be better to return to the test set out in Anns? ______________________________________________________________________________ This paper seeks to examine whether a retreat to the test set out in Anns v Merton London Borough Council is desirable, given the complexities of the tests established by Caparo Industries plc v Dickman. To qualify a return to the Anns’ approach, this paper has set out two requirements: departure from the Caparo’s tests must be necessary, and the Ann’s two-stage test must be able to remedy the obscurities created by the Caparo’s approach. Points of discussion include the survival of the Caparo’s approach, the feasibility and practicality of the two-stage test as a substitute, and the formulation of new alternatives. This paper will then go on to conclude that it is unfeasible to revert to the test established in Anns. In assessing whether the two-stage test should be readopted, the first threshold is the survival of the current test for duty of care. To establish a novel duty of care under first part of the Caparo test, the damage suffered by the claimant must be reasonably foreseeable; there must be a relationship of proximity between the claimant and the defendant; and it must be ‘fair, just and
Negligence Problem Question - a fire at Amber Valley School damages Mark's property.
Table of Contents INTRODUCTION AMBER BOROUGH COUNCIL JUSTIN AND JASON Do they owe duty of care to Mark? Do they breach the duty of care? Causation Remoteness CHIGLEY SERVICES LTD (CS) HOME OFFICE THE FIRE ENGINE REMEDIES CONCLUSION INTRODUCTION From the above statement, Mark has suffered losses such as property damage, consequential economic loss, and loss of profits. Mark may have claims in tort of negligence. Negligence operates as a means to compensate a claimant for foreseeable losses caused by a defendant’s breach of duty of care.[1] In order to win his claims, he must prove four elements on preponderance of evidence and on balance of probabilities: . The party owed Mark a duty of care 2. The party breached such duty 3. The party’s breach caused the damage which he suffered and; 4. Mark must show that the damage suffered is not too remote from the party’s negligence. I will examine whether Mark will have any successful claims towards the relevant parties based on the elements listed. AMBER BOROUGH COUNCIL Amber Borough Council (ABC) is the local education authority who owns Amber Valley Primary School; the school was set fire by a group of youths and caused damage to the neighbouring property including Mark’s shop. The issue is whether ABC owes
Tort essay
In order to be able to verify that Woldshire County Council (WCC) have breached their duty of care we must be able to guide Julie, through three key elements of negligence. Once these elements have been applied, it will establish a successful claim within negligence. Julie is a fifteen-year-old pupil at Woldshire Secondary School, who was injured while on an adventure weekend in the Lake District. Additionally, through the three elements, there are a various set of tests, that helps identify, that the claimant has not yet met the required standard of care. Once we can determine that these elements have been breached, we will be able to conclude that WCC have breached their duty of care and as a result, they have not met the required standard of care for Julie. It was the definition made by Winfield and Jolowicz that first set out the three key elements of how to establish a successful claim within negligence. They stated, "Negligence as a tort is a breach of a legal duty to take care, which could thereby result in damage towards the claimant." From this definition, we can see how the three key elements were first established. These elements requires that you ask three separate questions- Does the defendant actually owe the claimant a Duty of Care, Has the defendant breached that duty of care and did the claimant suffer damages as a result of that breach. The first element of
