Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
DUTY OF CARE (GENERAL) (Development of tort of negligence ('The breach…
DUTY OF CARE (GENERAL)
-
Singapore's position
Ocean Front, Eastern Lagoon, Sunrise Crane, Spandeck
Ngiam Kong Seng: Quoted Spandeck, single test to determine imposition of a duty of care irrespective of type of damages claimed.
-
-
Substantial requirements
Threshold requirement: factual foreseeability - ought to have known that claimant would suffer damage. Whether it was reasonably foreseeable that def would cause "some sort of loss or damage" (Animal Concerns)
-
'Incrementalism'
Spandeck: test is to be applied incrementally. When applying the test in each stage, it would be desirable to refer to decided cases in analogous situations.
Duty of care / omissions
Factual foreseeability
Man Mohan Singh
Is driver expected to know that victims would constitute all children of the parent? Not expected to even know victims are from same family. Or parents of what age, medical condition (such that they need assisted reproduction by medical means to replace offspring).
Reasonably foreseen: Ho See Jui, Animal Concerns, Nitine Jantilal
Proximity
Physical harm: No fear of limitless liability (Spandeck).
Sato Kogyo: Where the defective product causes physical damage to the ultimate user's own property, the duty of care is well-established and there is no need to go into long analysis based on the twp-stage test.
Psychiatric harm: Fear of limitless liability (Ngiam, Man Mohan Singh). McLoughlin factors relevant.
-
Policy
Psychiatric harm cases, policy consideration was indeterminate liability if allow claim.
Economic loss cases, whether there is concurrent duties, especially when there is contractual duty.
-
-