Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Tort of Negligence - Coggle Diagram
Tort of Negligence
How to Prove Negligence
Plaintiff needs to prove 3 elements by evidence (on a balance of probability
Duty of Care
Breach of Duty: Causation (factual & legal)
Damage/Injury
NEGLIGENCE!!!
Development of Duty of Care (DOC)
A legal obligation that is owed to another, which needs to be satisfied, where somebody also has a corresponding right
Neighbourhood Principle: to have legal proximity and to take reasonable care to avoid acts which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour
Donoghue v Stevenson:
manufacturer owes the customer DOC.
Gave rise to the tort of negligence. You cannot sue if you don't have a contractual agreement back in the past (Winterbottom v Wright 1842)
Caparo test:
Was the damage reasonably foreseeable?
Was there a relationship of proximity between claimant and defendant?
Is it just and reasonable to impose a duty?
Caparo v Dickman (1990): Shareholders in Caparo bought more shares and made a takeover bid for a company (Fidelity PLC). After studying the audited accounts, they were inaccurate and brought an action against the auditors alleging they had relied on accounts that showed a surplus rather than a deficit.
Issue: Could the defendants be liable to Caparo for negligent preparation of accounts?
Held: HoL decided that the auditors owed no DOC as audits are not meant to be a source of info/guidance for new investors
2-staged test:
Did the party satisfy the Neighbourhood test?
Is there any policy consider policy considerations to allow a DOC in this situation?
Anns v Merton London Borough (1978):
The Neighbour test will only apply unless there were policy reasons to exclude it = expansion of situations where DOC could arise thus, scope of negligence.
As the Neighbour test would apply unless there was policy reasons excluding it, it leads to expansion of situations where DOC will arise and increasing scope of negligence
To impose DOC when they can find precedent in comparable, factual situations
Murphy v Brentwood City Council (1990): HoL invoked the Practice Statement to overrule Anns where they quoted the High Court of Australia:
"It is preferable in the view that laws should develop novel categories that is established, instead of massive extensions of prima facie DOC, restrained only by indefinable "considerations ought to be negative"
Omissions
Situations where DOC is not imposed/denied. General rule: Omissions does not give rise to a DOC
When can a defendant be liable for an omission/failure to do something?
When the defendant has control over the claimant
When the defendant as assumed responsibility for another
When the defendant creates a danger/makes a danger worse
Exceptions to Omission:
When there is a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP between the parties
Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis (1955):
Facts: Driver of a car was killed when he tried to avoid a child who ran onto the road.
Held: The School authorities were held liable for letting the child out from the school compound as its foreseeable that the child can cause an accident.
When the defendants have CONTROL OVER 3rd PARTIES who caused damage to claimant
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co (1970):
Facts: Prison officers were in charge of a youth custody center. Due to their negligence, boys escape the borstal and took boats belonging to the claimants to try and get away from the island and also damaged them.
Held: The HoL held that the Home office was liable for the escape of the boys as they were under their control. But it did not mean the Office was liable for the damage caused by the boys. The Office did not owed DOC to anyone who might suffer damage caused by the boys, only those in risk. The yacht owners fall into that category as it was clearly foreseeable that if the boys escaped, damage would follow. Thus, Home Office liable.
Defendant has CONTROL over LAND/PROPERTY where danger may exist
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation (1987):
Littlewoods are owners of a disused cinema where vandals set the building on fire, damaging neighbouring buildings
Held: HoL held that although occupier of land owed DOC to prevent risks caused by 3rd parties Littlewoods is not liable as they could not have reasonably foreseen trespassers
The omission is CONTRARY TO AN EXISTING DUTY TO ACT
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1988):
Facts: Mother of one of the women was killed by Peter Sutcliffe (Yorkshire Ripper). They sued the police arguing that they had been negligent in failing to catch him earlier and so prevent her daughter's murder.
Held: Police owed no DOC towards the claimant's daughter as there was no reason to believe she was in special danger from Sutcliffe. She was simply in the same general danger as any other women in public where the murder happened.