TORT LAW 1
DUTY OF CARE
The defendant must have owed a
duty of care to the plaintiff
2
BREACH OF DUTY OF
CARE
The defendant must have breached the duty
NEGLIGENCE
In order to successfully
3
prove a defendant was
negligent and should CAUSATION
thus be held liable under
the eyes of the law, there
are five elements of
negligence that a plaintiff
must prove.
4
LOSS & DAMAGES
the defendant’s breach must have been
the direct cause of injury
What is negligence:- any
act or omission which falls
short of the standard to be
5
FORESEEABILITY OF
expected of the
SUCH DAMAGE
"reasonable person".
, Not all careless act give
A defendant will be at fault rise to liability even if a ESTABLISHED DUTY
if he owes a legal duty to defendant is at fault and SITUATIONS
take care for the person this causes damage to the DOCTOR-PATIENT
who is injured. Therefore, it claimant. DENTIST-PATIENT
is important to first
establish whether the LAWYER-CLIENT
defendant owes a duty of EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
care to the claimant. ROAD USER-ROAD USER
MANUFACTURER-CONSUMER
IF THE DUTY IS NOT
Generally, there is no duty
with omission to act. DUTY ALREADY
ESTABLSIHED
IT IS CONSIDER A NOVEL SITUATION
Exception:
duty not to make the
situation worse
OF CARE THEN CLAIMANT NEEDS TO APPLY 3
PART TEST IN CAPARO V DICKMAN
CAPARO 3-PART-TEST
1. REASONABLE 3. THAT IS FAIR, JUST AND
FORESIGHT OF HARM 2. SUFFICIENT PROXIMITY REASONABLE TO IMPOSE A
TO THE CLAIMANT OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DUTY ON THE DEFENDANT
CLAIMANT AND DEFENDANT
DUTY OF CARE
The defendant must have owed a
duty of care to the plaintiff
2
BREACH OF DUTY OF
CARE
The defendant must have breached the duty
NEGLIGENCE
In order to successfully
3
prove a defendant was
negligent and should CAUSATION
thus be held liable under
the eyes of the law, there
are five elements of
negligence that a plaintiff
must prove.
4
LOSS & DAMAGES
the defendant’s breach must have been
the direct cause of injury
What is negligence:- any
act or omission which falls
short of the standard to be
5
FORESEEABILITY OF
expected of the
SUCH DAMAGE
"reasonable person".
, Not all careless act give
A defendant will be at fault rise to liability even if a ESTABLISHED DUTY
if he owes a legal duty to defendant is at fault and SITUATIONS
take care for the person this causes damage to the DOCTOR-PATIENT
who is injured. Therefore, it claimant. DENTIST-PATIENT
is important to first
establish whether the LAWYER-CLIENT
defendant owes a duty of EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
care to the claimant. ROAD USER-ROAD USER
MANUFACTURER-CONSUMER
IF THE DUTY IS NOT
Generally, there is no duty
with omission to act. DUTY ALREADY
ESTABLSIHED
IT IS CONSIDER A NOVEL SITUATION
Exception:
duty not to make the
situation worse
OF CARE THEN CLAIMANT NEEDS TO APPLY 3
PART TEST IN CAPARO V DICKMAN
CAPARO 3-PART-TEST
1. REASONABLE 3. THAT IS FAIR, JUST AND
FORESIGHT OF HARM 2. SUFFICIENT PROXIMITY REASONABLE TO IMPOSE A
TO THE CLAIMANT OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DUTY ON THE DEFENDANT
CLAIMANT AND DEFENDANT
