TORT
2) The BREACH OF DUTY must be shown to prove that negligence has happened.
This means that did the D actions fall below the reasonable standard of the ORP
and the care expected of them due to that duty. ORP - an ordinary reasonable
person. In the case of Vaughan v Menlove 1837 it was outlined that if the D did not
meet their standard of care then there is a breach as their standard as a professional
Where one person owes another a legal responsibility of is much higher than an ORP.
some kind to another person after breaching that duty of DIFFERENT DUTIES =
care. If successful then the C will be awarded Professionals and trainees - Wilsher v Essex 1988 - junior doctors must be held to
damages to be put back in the pre-tortious position. the same standard as full qualified doctors.
The outline of a duty of care is outlined in the leading case Learner drivers - Nettleship v Weston 1971 - held to the same standard as ordinary
Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 which outlined the and fully qualified drivers.
neighbour principle. That negligence was that of the Evidence and facts - must be examined individually not by minority or by the majority
responsibility of the first source and that for a good duty of as outlined in Bolam v Friern 1954.
care for a successful negligence case you must have the Actions must be logical and defensible - i.e. a doctor would not incubate a baby
CAPARO test complete as outlined by Lord Atkin with breathing problems, Bolitho v city Hackney health authority 1997.
There are three main parts too showing negligence
being complete : duty of care, a breach of a duty and the To determine a breach in the duty of care there must be the completion of a
damage that has been caused and shown through objective test which there are 4 main principles:
causation (both legal and factual). 1) Seriousness of harm- where the likelihood of harm may be low but the
seriousness is high and the cost of prevention is marginal than D is liable.
1) The main principle of tort is the completion of the Wagon Mound No 1/2. Not liable because samge caused was too severe and
CAPARO TEST which outlines the three main too remote.
principles: 2) Likelihood of harm- the harm must be reasonably foreseeable and D is not
1. The harm must be reasonably foreseeable. This expected to guard against events that cannot be foreseen. Not foreseen not
is outlined in the case Topp v London country bus liable = outlined in Roe v Minister for Health 1954
1993, in this case the circumstances the harm was 3) Cost of prevention - the cost of prevention is marginal to avoid the incident
not reasonably foreseeable - no liability. and is not put in place then D will be liable, in Paris v Stepney 1951.
- Must have a relationship of proximity. This was 4) Social utility of D’s conduct - If it would be unfair to class a breach as they
outlined in the case of Bourhill v Young 1943 may have been acting in the best intentions of their conduct- outlined in Watt
which outlined that C and D had to be reasonably v Hertfordshire 1953.
and physically proximate to the negligence. This 3) The DAMAGE was caused by D’s actions through the use of factual and legal
failed - no liability causation as well as the foreseeability/remoteness of damage.
- Must be fair just and reasonable to impose a Factual causation = Barnett v chelsea and kensington hospital/Smith v white.
duty of care upon d and the claimant. Outlined in Legal causation = is there a break in the chain of causation, novus actus
the case of Watt V Hertfordshire 1954 , the level of intravenous, third party ? - Knightley v johns (ors) 1982 the actions of the police
harm imposed on the duty of care must be fair, just officer when attending the scene did result in the harm of the claimant.
and reasonable to suffice. Remoteness of harm has to also be considered- Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963,
D was not liable as the damage was not reasonably foreseeable by c’s actions. Must
RESOURCE MADE BY MARYSIA WOJCIK also consider SUCCESSIVE causation (more than one event)
2) The BREACH OF DUTY must be shown to prove that negligence has happened.
This means that did the D actions fall below the reasonable standard of the ORP
and the care expected of them due to that duty. ORP - an ordinary reasonable
person. In the case of Vaughan v Menlove 1837 it was outlined that if the D did not
meet their standard of care then there is a breach as their standard as a professional
Where one person owes another a legal responsibility of is much higher than an ORP.
some kind to another person after breaching that duty of DIFFERENT DUTIES =
care. If successful then the C will be awarded Professionals and trainees - Wilsher v Essex 1988 - junior doctors must be held to
damages to be put back in the pre-tortious position. the same standard as full qualified doctors.
The outline of a duty of care is outlined in the leading case Learner drivers - Nettleship v Weston 1971 - held to the same standard as ordinary
Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 which outlined the and fully qualified drivers.
neighbour principle. That negligence was that of the Evidence and facts - must be examined individually not by minority or by the majority
responsibility of the first source and that for a good duty of as outlined in Bolam v Friern 1954.
care for a successful negligence case you must have the Actions must be logical and defensible - i.e. a doctor would not incubate a baby
CAPARO test complete as outlined by Lord Atkin with breathing problems, Bolitho v city Hackney health authority 1997.
There are three main parts too showing negligence
being complete : duty of care, a breach of a duty and the To determine a breach in the duty of care there must be the completion of a
damage that has been caused and shown through objective test which there are 4 main principles:
causation (both legal and factual). 1) Seriousness of harm- where the likelihood of harm may be low but the
seriousness is high and the cost of prevention is marginal than D is liable.
1) The main principle of tort is the completion of the Wagon Mound No 1/2. Not liable because samge caused was too severe and
CAPARO TEST which outlines the three main too remote.
principles: 2) Likelihood of harm- the harm must be reasonably foreseeable and D is not
1. The harm must be reasonably foreseeable. This expected to guard against events that cannot be foreseen. Not foreseen not
is outlined in the case Topp v London country bus liable = outlined in Roe v Minister for Health 1954
1993, in this case the circumstances the harm was 3) Cost of prevention - the cost of prevention is marginal to avoid the incident
not reasonably foreseeable - no liability. and is not put in place then D will be liable, in Paris v Stepney 1951.
- Must have a relationship of proximity. This was 4) Social utility of D’s conduct - If it would be unfair to class a breach as they
outlined in the case of Bourhill v Young 1943 may have been acting in the best intentions of their conduct- outlined in Watt
which outlined that C and D had to be reasonably v Hertfordshire 1953.
and physically proximate to the negligence. This 3) The DAMAGE was caused by D’s actions through the use of factual and legal
failed - no liability causation as well as the foreseeability/remoteness of damage.
- Must be fair just and reasonable to impose a Factual causation = Barnett v chelsea and kensington hospital/Smith v white.
duty of care upon d and the claimant. Outlined in Legal causation = is there a break in the chain of causation, novus actus
the case of Watt V Hertfordshire 1954 , the level of intravenous, third party ? - Knightley v johns (ors) 1982 the actions of the police
harm imposed on the duty of care must be fair, just officer when attending the scene did result in the harm of the claimant.
and reasonable to suffice. Remoteness of harm has to also be considered- Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963,
D was not liable as the damage was not reasonably foreseeable by c’s actions. Must
RESOURCE MADE BY MARYSIA WOJCIK also consider SUCCESSIVE causation (more than one event)
