TORT LAW: Sara Ahmed
NEGLIGENCE TORT
TORT = A CIVIL WRONG.
REQUIREMENTS:
MOST IMPORTANT TORT TODAY = NEGLIGENCE
1. Duty of care
2. Breach of duty of care You also have tort to the person = assault, battery, unlawful imprisonment.
3. Causation Tort to land + tort to goods
4. Damage
5. No Defences
NEGLIGENCE: DUTY OF CARE
STEP 1: Check is there already an established duty of care (road users, doctors, lawyers etc.).
If not - For new/novel situations:
We use the CAPARO Test!
Donoghue v Stevenson = neighbour principle = foreseeability + proximity
Caparo: foreseeability + proximity + fair, just and reasonable = the test we use today! = three criteria.
A. Foreseeability: Bourhill v Young: claimant heard a collision between motorcycle and car, went to see it, shock and miscarriage = was not foreseeable.
B. Proximity: relationship between claimant and defendant. Duty of care may be limited in the case of: public body or police and for omissions, pure economic loss
and pure psychiatric harm.
C. Fair, just and reasonable: Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. Victim was killed by serial killer. Here the police were exonerated as they did not owe a duty of
care to an individual but to the whole public. Different thinks to consider, for example floodgates principle, deterrence, public benefit etc.
General rule = no liability for omissions
Exception: if someone decides to act, they have a duty not to make the situation worse.
NEGLIGENCE TORT
TORT = A CIVIL WRONG.
REQUIREMENTS:
MOST IMPORTANT TORT TODAY = NEGLIGENCE
1. Duty of care
2. Breach of duty of care You also have tort to the person = assault, battery, unlawful imprisonment.
3. Causation Tort to land + tort to goods
4. Damage
5. No Defences
NEGLIGENCE: DUTY OF CARE
STEP 1: Check is there already an established duty of care (road users, doctors, lawyers etc.).
If not - For new/novel situations:
We use the CAPARO Test!
Donoghue v Stevenson = neighbour principle = foreseeability + proximity
Caparo: foreseeability + proximity + fair, just and reasonable = the test we use today! = three criteria.
A. Foreseeability: Bourhill v Young: claimant heard a collision between motorcycle and car, went to see it, shock and miscarriage = was not foreseeable.
B. Proximity: relationship between claimant and defendant. Duty of care may be limited in the case of: public body or police and for omissions, pure economic loss
and pure psychiatric harm.
C. Fair, just and reasonable: Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. Victim was killed by serial killer. Here the police were exonerated as they did not owe a duty of
care to an individual but to the whole public. Different thinks to consider, for example floodgates principle, deterrence, public benefit etc.
General rule = no liability for omissions
Exception: if someone decides to act, they have a duty not to make the situation worse.
