Tort
Liability in negligence
Negligence requires three elements:
● A duty of care being owed to the claimant by the defendant
● That duty of care being broken, as the required standard of care has been breached
by the defendant
● That broken duty must have caused the loss complained of, and the loss must not be
too remote a consequence
These three elements are known as duty, breach and damage
Accident Trial Award
Evidence collected Trial court- prove duty, Award of damages
Case prepared breach and damage cash
Negotiations Verdict
To succeed in a negligence case, there must be proof that the act of the defendant falls
within the definition of what must be proved for a successful claim in negligence:
● That a duty of care was owed by the defendant to the claimant
● That the defendant broke that duty of care; this means their act was not performed to
the standard the law requires, which is that of the reasonable man
● That the broken duty caused the loss complained of, and that the law recognises that
the loss is not too remote from the act
All three elements - duty, breach and damage- must be proved before a claim for negligence
can succeed
The point made in Blyth v Birmingham waterworks is still relevant today as it puts the idea of
the reasonable man in the centre of the big brain.
Breach of duty
The nature of breach- the reasonable man
Once it has been established that a duty of care exists, the claimant must satisfy the court
that the defendant broke that duty of care by failing to reach the standard of care required.
The reasonable man was set out in the case ‘Blyth v Birmingham waterworks.’ The
reasonable man is expected to perform it reasonably competently. Therefore when someone
is riding their bike, they are expected to be a reasonably competent cyclist.
Types of reasonable man:
● The ordinary person doing a task
● The learner (Nettleship v Weston)
● The professional
● Young people (Mullins v Richards)
The principle for professionals is established by asking two questions:
1. Does the conduct of the defendant fall below the standard of the ordinary competent
professional?
2. Is there a substantial body of opinion within the profession that would support the
course taken by the defendant?
, If the answer to the first question is ‘no’ and to the second question is ‘yes’, then the
correct standard of care has been reached and the defendant has not broken his
duty of care.
An example of this is Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital management committee.
Questions to be asked to see whether the standard of care should be raised or
lowered:
● Are there any special characteristics of the claimant?
● What is the size of the risk?
● Have all practical precautions been taken?
● What are the benefits of taking the risk?
Special characteristics of the defendant- Paris v Stepney Borough Council
Size of the risk/have practical precautions been taken- Bolton v Stone
Benefits of taking the risk- Day v High performance sports
Damage caused by the defendant’s breach
Damages- Compensation awarded
Damage- The defendant’s breach
Situation Causation in fact Causation in law
Defendant’s act or omission Apply ‘but for’ test Take your victim as you find
Drives car into claimant’s Minor damage to car and him/unusual form of
car whiplash injury to claimant foreseeable injury
Wow thats a lot of damage Claimant already has a
weak neck from previous
accident and in fact breaks
neck
Causation in fact- ‘but for’ test; a case for this is ‘Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington hospital
where there was no causation in face
Multiple causes- where it’s hard to prove what actually caused the damage- Fairchild v
Glenhaven funeral ltd (2002)
Intervening events
Original negligent act--> New negligent act --> Injury caused
Diagram of the novus actus interveniens
Remoteness of damage- the test of reasonable foreseeability
Both factual and
legal causation
must be proved
for the defendant
to be guilty
Liability in negligence
Negligence requires three elements:
● A duty of care being owed to the claimant by the defendant
● That duty of care being broken, as the required standard of care has been breached
by the defendant
● That broken duty must have caused the loss complained of, and the loss must not be
too remote a consequence
These three elements are known as duty, breach and damage
Accident Trial Award
Evidence collected Trial court- prove duty, Award of damages
Case prepared breach and damage cash
Negotiations Verdict
To succeed in a negligence case, there must be proof that the act of the defendant falls
within the definition of what must be proved for a successful claim in negligence:
● That a duty of care was owed by the defendant to the claimant
● That the defendant broke that duty of care; this means their act was not performed to
the standard the law requires, which is that of the reasonable man
● That the broken duty caused the loss complained of, and that the law recognises that
the loss is not too remote from the act
All three elements - duty, breach and damage- must be proved before a claim for negligence
can succeed
The point made in Blyth v Birmingham waterworks is still relevant today as it puts the idea of
the reasonable man in the centre of the big brain.
Breach of duty
The nature of breach- the reasonable man
Once it has been established that a duty of care exists, the claimant must satisfy the court
that the defendant broke that duty of care by failing to reach the standard of care required.
The reasonable man was set out in the case ‘Blyth v Birmingham waterworks.’ The
reasonable man is expected to perform it reasonably competently. Therefore when someone
is riding their bike, they are expected to be a reasonably competent cyclist.
Types of reasonable man:
● The ordinary person doing a task
● The learner (Nettleship v Weston)
● The professional
● Young people (Mullins v Richards)
The principle for professionals is established by asking two questions:
1. Does the conduct of the defendant fall below the standard of the ordinary competent
professional?
2. Is there a substantial body of opinion within the profession that would support the
course taken by the defendant?
, If the answer to the first question is ‘no’ and to the second question is ‘yes’, then the
correct standard of care has been reached and the defendant has not broken his
duty of care.
An example of this is Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital management committee.
Questions to be asked to see whether the standard of care should be raised or
lowered:
● Are there any special characteristics of the claimant?
● What is the size of the risk?
● Have all practical precautions been taken?
● What are the benefits of taking the risk?
Special characteristics of the defendant- Paris v Stepney Borough Council
Size of the risk/have practical precautions been taken- Bolton v Stone
Benefits of taking the risk- Day v High performance sports
Damage caused by the defendant’s breach
Damages- Compensation awarded
Damage- The defendant’s breach
Situation Causation in fact Causation in law
Defendant’s act or omission Apply ‘but for’ test Take your victim as you find
Drives car into claimant’s Minor damage to car and him/unusual form of
car whiplash injury to claimant foreseeable injury
Wow thats a lot of damage Claimant already has a
weak neck from previous
accident and in fact breaks
neck
Causation in fact- ‘but for’ test; a case for this is ‘Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington hospital
where there was no causation in face
Multiple causes- where it’s hard to prove what actually caused the damage- Fairchild v
Glenhaven funeral ltd (2002)
Intervening events
Original negligent act--> New negligent act --> Injury caused
Diagram of the novus actus interveniens
Remoteness of damage- the test of reasonable foreseeability
Both factual and
legal causation
must be proved
for the defendant
to be guilty
