Economic Loss

Economic Loss
Economic Loss Economic loss suffered by the C will be regarded as pure if they do not flow from
any personal injury to the C nor form any physical damage to their property. The boundaries
between pure economic loss and loss which is consequential upon physical damage to the C's
property were investigated by the CoA in Spartan Steel v Martin (1973) QB 27 Like psychiatric
injury, pure economic loss is often described as a problematic form of damage. Although floodgates
arguments are sometimes encountered in this area, there are other reasons why a duty to take care
not to cause foreseeable economic loss to the claimant is not always appropriate. Hale J,
McLoughlin v Jones (2002) Psychiatric injury is different in kind from economic ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
To recognise a duty here would make significant inroads into the rule of contrast, because these
cases involve a bad bargain rather than harm to separate property. This approach is more
controversial when applied to realty (specifically buildings) rather than chattels, and in these cases
Murphy v Brentwood has been rejected in a number of common law jurisdictions. 3. Economic loss
is caused by reliance on negligent statements. This kind of case was the subject of the key decision
in Hedley Byrne v Heller. Hedley Byrne set out specific criteria for recognisisng a duty of care
where the C has relied upon a statement maid by the D. there is much debate surrounding the exact
criteria set out in Hedley Byrne and concerning its rationale and limits. The relationship between the
Hedley Byrne criteria and the three stage test under Caparo v Dickman continues to cause problems.
4. Extended Hedley Byrne principle. Hedley Byrne liability has been recognised as extending
beyond its particular context, in which statements were delivered by one party directly to another
party. First, Hedley Byrne liability has been extended to cases that involve more than one party,
including some where the claimant does not rely on the statement at all. Second, liability on the
basis of Hedley Byrne has been found outside the area of negligent statements, including cases of
professional services more
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

An Essay on Clinical Negligence
An Essay on Clinical Negligence "We have always thought of causation as a logical, almost
mathematical business. To intrude policy into causation is like saying that two plus two does not
equal to four because, for policy reasons, it should not." (Charles Foster NLJ 5/11/2004 page 1644).
To what extent do you consider that Charles Foster is correct in that causation and clinical
negligence should be a "mathematical business" and the courts have, by introducing matters of
policy, confused what should be a logical approach?
Introduction:
In the article of "It should be, therefore it is"1, its author, Charles Foster examined the surprise
House of Lords judgment in Chester v Afshar2, what he described as "an exercise in ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Therefore, it is crystal clear that the harm of the child's death would have occurred even if the doctor
had met her duty of care by attending the patient. Despite the court was not willing to settle for this
conclusion and instead enquired into whether the doctor's intended failure to intubate if she had
attended would have been clinically negligent in itself. This implies that it was considered by the
court at all is an indication that, if some serious harm has occurred, the courts will take into
considerations the entire circumstances of the case before coming to the conclusion as to whether
the causation requirement has been satisfied.
4. [1968] 1 A11 ER 1068.
5. [1997] UKHL 46, HL. The approach can be seen even more controversially in the 2004 case of
Chester v Afshar6, which Charles Foster has made his comment on as mentioned. This case
involved a doctor's clinical negligent failure to warn a patient about the risk inherent in a medical
procedure. There exists a need for the patient's consent to medical treatment to be fully informed.
The complication with respect to causation arose because the patient admitted that she would have
still undergone the surgery even if she had been warned about the risks of paralysis which
unfortunately materialized during the

law of torts
THE LAW OF TORTS INTRODUCTION The word tort is of French origin and is equivalent of the
English word wrong, and the Roman law term delict. It is derived from the Latin word tortum,
which means twisted or crooked. It implies conduct that is twisted or crooked. It is commonly used
to mean a breach of duty amounting to a civil wrong. Definition: a tort is defined as a civil wrong
for which the remedy is a common law action for unliquidated damages and which is not
exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of a trust or other merely equitable obligation. A
tort arises due to a person's duty to others in generally which is created by one law or the other. A
person who commits a tort is known as a tortfeaser, or a wrongdoer. Where ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
1. Voluntary and involuntary acts: acts and omissions may be voluntary or involuntary. An
involuntary act does not give rise to liability in tort. 2. Mental elements: Plaintiff may be required to
show some fault on the part of the defendant. Fault here means failure to live up to some ideal
standard of conduct set by law. To determine fault, the following may be proved:– a) Malice: In the
popular sense, malice means ill–will or spite. In Law, it means i) intentional doing of a wrongful act
and, ii) improper motive. b) Intention: i.e. where a person does a wrongful act knowing the possible
consequences likely to arise, he is said to have intended that act, and is therefore at fault. c)
Recklessness: i.e. where a person does an act without caring what its consequences might be, he is at
fault. d) Negligence: i.e. where the circumstances are such that a person ought to have foreseen
consequences of his act and avoided it altogether, he would be at fault if he bothers not. e) Motive:
Motive is the ulterior objective or purpose of doing an act and differs from intention. 3.
Malfeasance, misfeasance and non–feasance: 'Malfeasance‟ refers to the commission of a wrongful
act which is actionable per–se and do not require proof of intention or motive. „Misfeasance‟ is
applicable to improper performance of some lawful act, for example, where there is negligence.

The Case Of Frost V Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police
In the case of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] Lord Steyn stated that the
area of Tort Law relating to psychiatric trauma is rather complex. In order for the claimant to
successfully recover compensation the court needs to consider an amalgam of rules and exceptions
as well as different categories of claimants, which can, at times, be hard to identify and justify.
Critically discuss this statement considering the development in this area of Tort Law. Is the current
distinction of primary and secondary victim justifiable? Is this area of law currently coherent and
efficient?
This essay aims to provide a critical discussion of the common law of the current development of
negligently inflicted psychiatric injury or illness previously known as ''nervous shock'' and the
development and history in this area of tort law, while awarding damages for negligently inflicted
injury and looking at the distinction between primary and secondary victim when claiming damages
and why it is said to be complex.
Psychiatric injury, also known as "nervous shock'' has been perceived to have a complex criteria and
principles that have to be met before one can claim for damages. Claims for ''nervous shock'' have
been seen to have adopted an illogical approach leading to unfairness in order to prevent an open to
the ''floodgates" for many flatulent psychiatric injury and illness claims. The ''floodgate'' argument
has shown to be a disputable and problematic concern for

Malpractice And Malpractice Of A Healthcare Organization
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This paper will be discussing tort as it relates to negligence and malpractice in a healthcare
organization. It will try explain how negligence and malpractice drive up the cost of healthcare and
how there has been a clamor tort reform, what would be the content of the reform and the expected
outcome. Lastly the essay would prove to us that there is no indication since tort reform has been
implemented, that points to a reduction in the cost of healthcare and the cost of running a healthcare
organization in relation to paying high malpractice insurance.
TORT
Tort is a civil wrong for which a court of law provides remedy for a civil wrong that has been
committed against an individual, Remedy could be sought for a personal loss, financial loss, and
personal injury (Smith, 1993). "A tort is simply the Norman word for a wrong but torts have
typically been distinguished from crimes and from wrongs identified with contractual relations. Tort
law, then, is concerned with civil wrongs not arising from contracts" (White, 2003, p.xxiii).During
the very early years of tort been introduced in to legal discourse and proceeding, tort was considered
as a wrong that came by way or forceful damage or hurt. It was widely regarded both as a civil
wrong and a criminal during those early years, civil wrongs can be classified as a wrong that
involves no violence and also a wrong that involves an element of force and violence (Street, 1906).
HISTORY OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

Law of Tort on Trespass/ Assault/ Battery in Relation...
Outline the law of tort on trespass/assault/battery and discuss one in relation to patient autonomy.
Introduction:
It is said that nurses hold a certain power over patients, which makes the nurse–patient relationship
unequal and takes independence away from the patient. In order to allow the patient more
independence and freedom of choice, the law has come up with the concept of patient autonomy.
This provides the patient with a chance to voice their own opinion and the power to consent to or to
refuse medical treatment and it is a legal right of the patient. This is grounded in the constitution as
stated in Article 40.3 (1)
‘The state guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and
vindicate ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The intention or motive behind the touching may be grounds for defence but it does not change the
fact that the battery occurred.
Law of tort on battery in relation to patient autonomy:
Patient autonomy is the right of patients to make their own decisions about their medical care
without the nurse or doctor influencing their decision. Although the concept of patient autonomy
allows the nurse/ doctor to educate the give the patient required information, it does not allow them
to make decisions for the patient.
Medical treatment without consent is considered battery as it is not respecting patient autonomy. The
doctor has a duty to explain the treatment or procedure to the patient and any risks or side effects
that can occur. It is the nurse's role to act as an advocate to the patient and ensure hat they fully
understand what the doctor has told them. As the nurse usually has the most contact with the patient
they are usually in the best position to assess the capacity of the patient to understand the
information given to them. For consent to be valid the patient must have the capacity to make
decisions, they must be informed of the nature, benefits and risks of the treatment and the doctor or
nurse must not put pressure on them to make a certain choice. Some patients may decide to refuse
treatment and this is their right even though it may seem strange to do so. If they have the mental
capacity to understand their decision and they are an

The Human Rights Act 1998
A duty of care arises at common law as long as the Caparo criteria is satisfied. This is applicable to
public authorities in the regard that it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty upon them as they
act for the collective welfare of society. Newtown Council is a local government authority
exercising public function; it is therefore susceptible to liability. Furthermore, it is important to note
that the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 has affected the law of negligence, a breach of
duty that results in damage to the claimant. This area of law has shown to be problematic and has
developed over the years as will be discussed subsequently.
Alice v Newtown Council Alice is suing the council on the false allegation of being over fed by her
mother. The claim is negligent had the council concluded this on unfounded evidence. Alice is
seeking remedy of damages for depression caused. In order to succeed in her claim, she has to
establish the council owed her a duty of care then show that it has been breached, causing her
psychiatric injury. In establishing the council owed her a duty of care, the defendant may argue the
facts of X v Bedfordshire, holding that it is not fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on a
public authority to protect children connoting claimants cannot reason the job was done badly. This
decision was made on the basis that it was not ethical to impose a duty solely on social workers. It
can be argued that if

Breaking the Chain
Breaking the chain
Breaking the chain (or novus actus interveniens, literally "new act intervening") refers in English
law to the idea that causal connections are deemed to finish. Even if the defendant can be shown to
have acted negligently, there will be no liability if some new intervening act breaks the chain of
causation between that negligence and the loss or damage sustained by the claimant. Discussion
Where there is only a single operative cause for the loss and damage suffered by the claimant, it is a
relatively simple matter to determine whether that cause was a breach of the duty of care owed to
the claimant by the defendant. But where the sequence of events leading to the loss and damage
comprises more than one cause, the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Royal Norwegian Government.
[edit] Sequential causes
Decisions are not always clear–cut where the loss or damage flowing from an initial tort is
overwhelmed by a more serious injury caused by:
(a) a second tort, or
(b) a supervening illness or natural event.
In Baker v. Willoughby [1970] AC 467 the defendant negligently injured the claimant's leg in a car
accident. The claimant was later an innocent victim when shot in the same leg by some robbers and
the leg was amputated. The House of Lords held that the defendant was liable to pay full
compensation for the injury he had caused, based on the claimant's losses beyond the time when his
leg was amputated. Since the claimant's disability would have been permanent, damages were
assessed as if the second event had not occurred. If the chain had been treated as broken and the
defendant had had no liability in respect of the period after the claimant's leg had been amputated,
the claimant would have fallen between two sets of defendants (the robbers were not available as
defendants to pay their share of full compensation). This decision was criticised in Jobling v.
Associated Dairies [1982] AC 794 where the claimant's employer negligently caused a slipped disk

Mchale V Watson Case Summary
1. Summary of Decision
In McHale v Watson, the appellant, Susan McHale, had sued the respondent, Barry Watson, for
negligence for the act of throwing a piece of metal that hit and permanently destroyed vision in one
eye. It was concluded that the most likely scenario was that the projectile glanced off the post and
struck the appellant. The appellant appealed on two grounds: the first, that the trial judge erred in
holding that the standard of care for negligence differed between the respondent at age 12 and that if
he was an adult; and the second, that regardless of the standard of care test applied, his Honour
should have made a finding of negligence on the facts.
The majority dismissed the appeal and agreed with the trial judge in his ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Owen J held the view that the test for the standard of care where an infant defendant was sued for
negligence was that of a reasonable child of the same 'age, intelligence and experience', extending
the qualifying subjective elements of capacity for a child.
However, Menzies J, in his dissenting judgment, found no issue in differentiating the objective test
used to determine negligence in an act against another, and the subjective test employed in
contributory negligence, in the plaintiff's lack of care for themselves. Furthermore, to allow for the
subjective standard of age would, in his opinion, precipitate the use of other special standards for
other groups of lesser capacity than the ordinary person. He judged that the respondent should have
been held to the standard of a reasonable man. But even if the standard is to that of an ordinary
child, he held it was still negligent to have thrown a dart in such a fashion in the direction of another
person.
2. Critical Analysis
McHale v Watson involved the tort of negligence, described by Deane J in Jaensch v Coffey to
consist of a duty of care owed to the plaintiff by the defendant; a breach of care by the defendant
through an act that was contrary to what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances; and an
injury that was caused by the defendant's breach which was reasonably foreseeable in the
circumstances. In particular, the case turned on the question of whether age should be considered in
the

The Decision Reached Of Cattanach V Melchior
This essay will argue that the decision reached in Cattanach v Melchior [2003] was the correct one.
Supporting this argument is the courts departure from the principles established in McFarlane v
Tayside Health Board [1999].Additionally, Cattanach extends itself by attempting to address and
give legal clarity to the idea of compensable harm in relation to negligence of medical practitioners.
This has ultimately led to Cattanach establishing a positive framework, previously not recognised by
the courts, to award damages for the torts of wrongful birth and wrongful life. Finally, the reaction
to Cattanach on the judicial and executive branches of government have had significant impact on
shaping public policy in relation to these complex issues. I. MCFARLANE The judgment raises
interesting questions as to the characterisation of childbirth and parenthood within modern society.
The majority in Cattanach appear to recognise this modern trend, treating the costs of raising a child
born as a result of negligence as the consequential harm of an injury for which parents are entitled to
compensation, just as victims of negligence ordinarily are in respect of damages that are not too
remote. By addressing the issues canvassed, Cattanach looks to clarify the ideas established
previously in McFarlane and supports the indication that the judgment reached is the correct one. In
part by abolishing the presumption that children are to be classified as a blessing. a. Blessing The

Employers Liability in Negligence
NEGLIGENCE: THE EMPLOYER'S DUTIES Employers Liability in Negligence May be
personally liable to employees who injure themselves. May be personally liable to employees who
are injured by another employee or sometimes by an independent contractor employed by the
employer. May be vicariously liable if one employee is injured by another employee. NOTE:
Employees may also be able to recover from statutory workers compensation schemes. Employees'
rights at common law may be restricted by the same schemes. e.g. WorkCover Queensland Act 1996
Other Possible Causes of Action Against an Employer The tort of breach of statutory duty (separate
tort). Breach of an express or implied term of the contract of employment ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The finding of liability. 2. The finding of only 10% contributory negligence. Dismissed the appeal:
1. P conduct must be judged in the context of the finding of Ds failure to provide a safe system of
work. 2. P's conduct was mere inadvertence, inattention or misjudgement. Leading Authority
presently. At page 310, "Once it is accepted that such use [of such hoist] would eliminate the risk of
injury, it is necessarily follows that a prudent employer exercising reasonable care would require
that it be used." The employer must insist on a safe system, if it is not used, must sack the employee.
Bus v. S.C.C. (1989) "The law has progressed by placing an increased emphasis upon the relevance
of the possibility of negligence or inadventure on the part of the person to whom the duty is owed"
at page 90. Defendants must anticipate carelessness on the behalf of others. Premises and Tools
Davie v. New Merton Board Mills The plaintiff got hit in the eye by a piece of a chisel, the employer
was not liable because: The defect in the tools was not discoverable on reasonable inspection AND
Bought from a reputable manufacturer. Wilson v Tyneside Employer not liable because: P
experienced window cleaner. D did issue warnings in writing and orally. Duty not so high when
premises not Ds. P had cleaned those windows before and knew them to be unsafe. Checking was
not the trade practice. Smith v.

Historical Sexual Abuse Claims Dating From The 1970 ' S
Question 4 Explain fully the issues involved in the High Court decision in Stingel v Clark (2006)
226 CLR 442. Did the High Court reach the right decision in this case? Contextual Analysis In
Stingel v Clark (2006), plaintiff, Carol Ann Stingel sued Geoff Clark over alleged historical sexual
abuse claims dating from the 1970‟s. 1 In this case, the High Court had opted not to follow the
earlier House of Lords authority of Stubbings v Webb, 2 "which had denied that the commencement
of a limitation period could be delayed until the date of the injured person 's 'knowledge ' in the case
of an intentional assault".3 Instead the High Court relied on the interpretation of Section 5(1A) of
the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic), which reads as follows: "An action for damages for
negligence nuisance or breach of duty (whether the duty exists by virtue of a contract or of provision
made by or under a statute or independently of any contract or any such provision) where the
damages claimed by the plaintiff consist of or include damages in respect of personal injuries
consisting of a disease or disorder contracted by any person may be brought not more than six years
from and the cause of action shall be taken to have accrued on the date on which the person first
knows – (a) That he has suffered those personal injuries; and (b) that those personal injuries were
caused by the act or omission of some person." In handing down the decision, The High Court
submitted that Ms Stingel was

Booth V. Cooperton Case Summary
Cooperton did not suffer harm amounting to an injury–in–fact. 1. Cooperton did not suffer a
concrete, de facto injury. Bazinga's single phone call to Cooperton's cell phone using the ATDS did
not result in a concrete, de facto injury. See David, 704 F.3d at 332 (holding speculative future
harms are insufficient for concrete injury). With respect to TCPA violations, a plaintiff must show
that he suffered an injury–in–fact solely as a result of the telephone ringing for that particular call.
See Romero v. Dep't Stores Nat'l Bank, No. 15–CV–193–CAB–MDD, 2016 WL 4184099, at *4
(S.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016) (dismissing complaint for lack of standing for failure to allege concrete
injury because the call had no effect on the plaintiff's life). Here, no reasonable juror could find that
one unanswered telephone call could cause lost time, aggravation, distress or any injury sufficient to
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Unlike Booth v. Appstack, Inc., Cooperton received one phone call via an ATDS and did not answer
the call. [R. 2]. Plaintiffs in similar cases in multiple federal District Courts have suffered harm from
a repeated procedural violation due to the extensive interruption of business lines. See Booth v.
Appstack, Inc., No. C13–1533JLR, 2016 WL 3030356, at *4 (W.D. Wash. May 24, 2016) (denying
motion to dismiss for lack of standing for a procedural violation of the TCPA because defendant
used the ATDS to place over 600,000 calls to 90,000 cell phones). However, the same judicial result
has not been found for a single, fleeting violation of the TCPA and therefore should not be found
here. See Smith v. Aitima Med. Equip., Inc., No. ED CV 16–00339–AB, 2016 WL 4618780, *1, at
*4 (C.D. Cal. July 29, 2016) (holding analleged depilation of the plaintiff's battery, aggravation, and
nuisance was insufficient to constitute real

Business Tort Liability : Tort
Business Tort Liability Tort is a wrong. The law provides remedies to persons or businesses that are
injured by the tortious actions of others (Cheeseman, 2014, p. 115). In the law of tort, there are two
parties, including plaintiff and defendant. Usually, the plaintiff is a person directly affected either
emotionally or physically by the incident because of the defendant's actions while the defendant is
the individual who injured the plaintiff (Staver Law Group). In this case, Mr. Speed is the defendant
due to his behavior resulting to Ms. Smith, the plaintiff, who got injured. Moreover, he must be
taken against by his actions in a court of law. In a tort action, there are three elements established.
First, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was under a legal duty to act in a particular
action. Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant breached this duty by failing to
conform his or her behavior accordingly. Third, the plaintiff must prove that he or she suffered
injury or loss as a direct result of the defendant's breach (Lehman & Phelps, 2005, p. 57). According
to the case, when Mr. Speed came to pick Ms. Smith up, he came to a screeching halt at the curb.
According to Collins English Dictionary, screeching halt is defined as a high–pitched sound caused
by a brake and tires of a vehicle which stop suddenly. It means that the taxi driver was recklessly
driving and in a hurry, so that he did not make sure that everything was in order. That is

Ethics Of The Bolam Test
When a doctor provides a patient with insufficient information, a alternative action may lie in a
claim for negligence for breach of duty of care towards the patient. In the landmark case of Sidaway
v Board of Governors of Bethlem Royal Hospital, the House of Lords held that the legal standard to
be relied upon while assessing whether a doctor was negligent in relation to rendering advice about
treatment was contained in the 'Bolam test'. As per this test a doctor would not be held to have acted
negligently if he acted in accordance with a reasonable body of medical opinion. The majority in the
Sidaway case rejected the approach adopted by Lord Scarman who was of the view that the law
must recognise the duty of the doctor to warn his patient ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
in English jurisprudence the doctor's relationship with his patient which gives rise to a normal duty
of care to exercise his skill and judgement to improve the patient's health in any particular respect in
which the patient sought his aid, has hitherto been treated as a single comprehensive duty covering
all the ways in which a doctor called upon to exercise his skill and judgement in the improvement of
a physical or mental condition of the patient for which his services either as a general practitioner or
specialist have been engaged. This general duty is not subject to dissection into a number of
component parts to which different criteria of what satisfied the duty of care apply, such as
diagnosis, treatment or advice'. The Bolam test has therefore been treated as laying down a principle
of English law that is comprehensive and applicable to every aspect of the duty of care owed by a
doctor to his patient in the exercise of his healing functions with respect to that particular

Negligence As A Tort ( Defitions )
1. INTRODUCTION
Tortious liability in negligence is a very amorphous topic which has evolved through many centuries
through different interpretations of case's by the jurist who decided them and tried to set a guideline
for rest of the world to follow them and so as to rights of everyone is enjoyed in an equal manner
without someone suffering because of actions of another's negligent conduct and if one does suffer
then he could have remedy for loss suffered by him. We look into negligence as a constituents of
torts and how negligence is defined by other jurist in the introduction chapter of this project. 1.1
NEGLIGENCE AS A TORT (DEFITIONS)
Negligence as a tort is a breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage to the plaintiff.
More elaborate definition of negligence can be "A failure to behave with the level of care that
someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behaviour
usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a
duty to help victims of one 's previous conduct)."
According to Swayne J. of United States, "Negligence is the failure to do what a reasonable and
prudent person would ordinarily have done under circumstances of the situation."
The Supreme Court of India has also coined a definition in one of its judgement it observed that
"Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable
man, guided by those

Negligence is a breach of the duty of care owed by one...
Negligence is a breach of the duty of care owed by one person to another from the perspective of a
reasonable person. The Duty of care owed in number of situations such as driver and pedestrian,
doctor and patient, employer and employee, teacher and student and in many other situations.
Thereby, negligence is one of the most extensive areas in tort law. In order to prove liability in
negligence the claimant must show, on the balance of probability, that the defendant owed a duty of
care, breached that duty by failing to meet the standard of care required and as a result the claimant
suffered loss or damage which is not too remote.[1] Thus, it is important to prove all three elements
because each of them are complex and conceptually ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Thus, the duty of care test for psychiatric injury cases is different for them. For primary victims
there is tow elements to be established: firstly, is there a recognized psychiatric injury, secondly, was
the claimant: physically injured as well as psychiatrically, in danger of physical injury. If witnesses
to the incident in some way while not themselves in physical danger further tests apply: do they
have a recognized psychiatric illness, caused by a sudden shock, are they within a class of people
who the law allows to claim compensation for psychiatric injury as a secondary victim and what was
their proximity to the shocking event?
The third case where three–part test is used is omission. In general, in Negligence there is no
liability for omission. However, there are some situations where a defendant may be liable for it. It
is when the defendant has a high degree of control over the claimant, assumed responsibility for the
claimant in some way and created a dangerous situation, and fails to deal with it. The case Stovin v
Wise [1996] AC 923 is proof on it.
Acts of third parties is another case where Caparo test is still the basis of liability. Negligence
usually executes liability only on the person who causes damage, but there are five

Basic Law (Tort)
Building law and contract admin Assignment no 2 Tort Volenti non fit injuria Latin / voluntary
assumption of risk. A defence in tort that means where a person engages in an event accepting and
aware of the risks inherent in that event, then they can not later complain of, or seek compensation
for an injury suffered during the event. This is used most often to defend against tort actions as a
result of a sports injury Smith v Charles baker & son 1891 Dulieu v White and son 1901 Herd v
Weardale Steel and Coal 1914 Doctrine From the Latin word doctrina meaning "teachings."
Something taught as a the principle or creed especially in religion. A rule or principle of law ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Damages occasioned by the collision of two trains of a same railway. Devine v Colville's ltd 1969
Royal bank of Scotland v Etridge 2001 Donohue v Stevenson 1931 Question 2 i. Which parties may
be liable for the injury and losses suffered Introduction To deal with the liabilities of this case I feel
it would be poignant to break the case down and investigate each individual parties involvement and
therefore liability. List of parties possibly involved West Kent collage Buildright Ltd Kentcrete Ltd
Driver 1 ( using the designated entrance) Driver 2 (using the staff and student entrance) Driver 3
(driver of the car) Student 1 (the driver of the car) Student 2 (student that was hit by the car) Student
3 (who was sick due to the accident) Air ambulance service Hospital West Kent collage West Kent
collage had appointed a competent contractor to legally carry out the construction of the new
building and would not seam to be directly involved in the accident, Although they do have a
reasonability of care to there students. The students involved were in areas that were designated for
there use, and therefore not acting illegally or with negligence. The fact that student 1 was in the
driver seat in the car would imply that the car was, just stationary, and not parked illegally. Due to
the collage being " to far away" or "not directly involved" the collage in my opinion would not be
liable in any way

Vicarious Liability
submitted to prof. manjula batra | LAW OF TORTS PROJECT | VICARIOUS LIABILITY | | |
SUBMITTED BY:VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGHFIRST SEMEMSTER, 2012BA., LL.B. (HONS.) |
|
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would take this opportunity to thank the people who helped me in making this project which has
been a learning experience. In that endeavour, first and foremost I would express my gratitude
toward my professor of Law of Torts Ms Manjula Batra. Her immense knowledge and teaching
skills along with her helping disposition are where all of this stemmed from. Next, I would thank my
seniors in the faculty who gave us guidelines as to how to go about the research. These are the
people who were always there with me in the making of this project. Heartfelt ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
In these cases liability is joint as well as several. The other common example of vicarious liability is
the liability of an employer for the torts of his employees committed in the course of employment. It
is not necessary in such circumstances for the employer to have breached any duty that was owed to
the injured party, and therefore it operates as strict or no–fault liability. It is possible that the injured
party could be either an employee or a stranger, and the employer can be held vicariously liable in
both situations. The most important element to establishing a case for vicarious liability is that the
wrongdoer be acting as a servant or employee, and that the wrong done be connected to the
employees course of employment. Vicarious liability can only be imposed if it is proved that the
employee was acting ³in the course of employment. This criterion is essential, and requires a clear
connection between the employment duties and the employee's acts complained of. A reason for
vicarious responsibility of employers is that employers usually are, while their servants usually are
not, financially capable of the burden of civil liability. The theory partly owes its existence to the
anxiety of the injured person to find a solvent defendant. Again it is said that the employer must be
made liable because it is he 'who has set the whole thing in motion.'
TYPES OF LIABITIES
Liability by

Case Analysis Of Yun Tung Chow Vs. Reckitt & Colman, Inc.
Case Study of case 69 A.D.3d 413: Yun Tung Chow vs. Reckitt & Colman, Inc. Analyzed by:
Ashley Sneed Business Law 260 Summer OL Professor Howard Hammer 11 July 2015 Part I:
Overview of Case (who is involved and what they are arguing, as well as all possible theories,
defenses, and torts involved) Plaintiff and Appellant Yun Tung Chow Defendant Reckitt & Colman,
Inc. Main Theories Involved Product Liability, Strict Liability, Negligence, Breach of Warranty
Main Defenses Involved Mistake of Fact, Contributory Negligence, Comparative Negligence,
Assumption of Risk Main Torts Involved Tort of Strict Liability, Tort of Negligence Plaintiff and
Appellant: the person bringing the case against another person in the court of law (Clarkson, Miller,
Frank, Cross chapter 1). Yun Tung Chow will be referred to in this analysis as "YTC" from here on
forward. Defendant: the person being sued or accused by plaintiff in the court of law (Clarkson,
Miller, Frank, Cross chapter 1). Reckitt & Colman, Inc. will be referred to in this analysis as "R&C"
from here on forward. In this case, found using WestlawNext online database through the Ball State
University Libraries, the plaintiff sustained an eye injury while using the defendant's product, a
drain cleaner formulated with crystalline sodium hydroxide. Product is called "Lewis Red Devil
Lye," and will be known in this analysis from here on out as "LRDL". The plaintiff is alleging that
this product

Essay on Liability for Omissions
Liability for Omissions
The law has historically been reluctant to impose a general liability for omissions as opposed to
positive acts. This means that there is no general duty of care in tort to act in order to prevent harm
occurring to another. In Smith v Littlewoods Organisation, Lord Goff stated clearly that "the
common law does not impose liability for what are called pure omissions". Similarly, in Yuen Kun
Yeu v A–G of Hong Kong, Lord Keith stated that people can ignore their moral responsibilities to
prevent harm occurring to another, even when it is easily within their power to do so. He added that
it would be unthinkable for there to be "liability in negligence on the part of one who sees another
about to walk over a cliff ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
A number of other jurisdictions do however impose affirmative duties of rescue. For example, the
French Penal Code imposes criminal liability on anyone who wilfully refuses to assist a person in
danger where he could have done so without risk to himself or others. Furthermore, where the
danger materialises and injury results, breach of this duty is actionable under the Code Civil which
allows liability for omissions. Similar criminal liabilities for failing to perform an "easy rescue" also
exist in the USA, and also in Canada via the Vermont Statute, although it is unclear whether
damages in civil law can also be recovered in such a case.
Despite the general principle excluding liability for omissions, liability may arise in certain
exceptional circumstances. Although these situations where a duty may arise on the basis of an
omission are difficult to classify, what is usually required in all of them is some element of
proximity. This may be created in a number of situations which will now be looked at. In addition,
in such cases, the factors for establishing a duty of care (forseeability, proximity, fair, just and
reasonable) laid down in Caparo will also need to be looked at.
Voluntary Assumption of Responsibility
Where one of the parties has either expressly or impliedly assumed responsibility for the other in
some way, or where such responsibility arises

White V Jones Case
Abstract:
The case of White v Jones [1995] is a famous case in the English tort law which concerns the
liability of solicitors to the beneficiaries of the will with whom they have no contractual relationship
if they performed their work negligently. This case raises the questions of professional negligence,
the third party beneficiary (relationship) and the duty of care. In the case of White v Jones the Court
of Appel followed the statement of Vice–Chancellor Megarry in Ross v Caunters [1980] : "In
considering the liability question, it is of the utmost importance to keep in mind that if there is no
liability, the result is striking: the only person who has a valid claim against the solicitor has suffered
no loss, and the only person ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and
directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so
affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question."
The principles in Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] and Donoghue v
Stevenson [1932] was confirmed in White v Jones [1995] .
The significance of the case of Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] lies in the Caparo test which
is stated by Lord Bridge:
"What emerges is that, in addition to the foreseeability of damage, necessary ingredients in any
situation giving rise to a duty of care are that there should exist between the party owing the duty
and the party to whom it is owed a relationship characterised by the law as one of "proximity" or
"neighbourhood" and that the situation should be one in which the court considers it fair, just and
reasonable that the law should impose a duty of a given scope upon the one party for the benefit of
the

Helen Palsgraf, Respondent, v
Helen Palsgraf, Respondent, v The Long Island Railroad Company, Appellant. Court of Appeals of
New York Argued February 24, 1928 Decided May 29, 1928 248 NY 339 CITE TITLE AS: Palsgraf
v Long Is. R.R. Co. [*340] OPINION OF THE COURT CARDOZO, Ch. J. Plaintiff was standing
on a platform of defendant 's railroad after buying a ticket to go to Rockaway Beach. A train stopped
at the station, bound for another place. Two men ran forward to catch it. One of the men reached the
platform of the car without mishap, though the train was already moving. The other man, carrying a
package, jumped aboard the car, but seemed unsteady as if about to fall. A guard on the car, who had
held the door open, reached forward to help ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
A different conclusion will involve us, and swiftly too, in a maze of contradictions. A guard
stumbles over a package which has been left upon a platform. It seems to be a bundle of
newspapers. It turns out to be a can of dynamite. To the eye of ordinary vigilance, the bundle is
abandoned waste, which may be kicked or trod on with impunity. Is a passenger at the other end of
the platform protected by the law against the unsuspected hazard concealed beneath the waste? If
not, is the result to be any different, so far as the distant passenger is concerned, when the guard
stumbles over a valise [*343] which a truckman or a porter has left upon the walk? The passenger
far away, if the victim of a wrong at all, has a cause of action, not derivative, but original and
primary. His claim to be protected against invasion of his bodily security is neither greater nor less
because the act resulting in the invasion is a wrong to another far removed. In this case, the rights
that are said to have been violated, the interests said to have been invaded, are not even of the same
order. The man was not injured in his person nor even put in danger. The purpose of the act, as well
as its effect, was to make his person safe. If there was a wrong to him at all, which may very well be
doubted, it was a wrong to a property interest only, the safety of his package. Out of this

The Case Of Hunter V Canary Wharf
In order to determine if the Plaintiffs, Sally, Benson, and Sue will be able to claim for the nuisance
and trespass indirectly caused by the Golf Club, we will have to look into whether they have the
grounds to sue for the torts committed by the defendant, the Golf Club.
With regards to Sally and Benson, they can sue on the torts of nuisance and trespass to land. As both
owners and occupiers of the house, they have proprietary interest in the land and thus, the case of
Hunter v Canary Wharf will allow them to sue for the tort of nuisance. Similarly, Sue will be suing
on the tort of nuisance as an occupier of the house. Even if she was not an owner of the house, but
merely a tenant, she will still be able to sue as she had exclusive possession over the house.
Should the judges decide that they do not have proprietary interest should they not hold full
ownership of the land, the case of McKenna will allow for their claim to proceed as they have a
right to their privacy as held under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR),
to which the Human Rights Act (HRA) will allow for its application in the United Kingdom (UK).
Regarding the tort of nuisance, Sally, Benson, and Sue can sue the management of the Golf Club as
they are the landowners of the golf course in which the nuisance originates from. As they were
aware of the repeated acts but had not taken any precautions, the Golf Club should be liable for the
continuing nuisance. The case of Tetley v Chitty

Criminal Law
Doctrine of vicarious liability
The doctrine of vicarious liability generally operates within the law of torts. It has become well–
established in English law and historically has been called "Master and Servant liability," which
clearly indicates the circumstances in which the doctrine becomes applicable in tort law.
The general rule in tort law is that a person who authorises a tort will personally be liable for
damage or harm as a result. However, vicarious liability defines the circumstances in which a person
is liable for the torts of another without express authorisation or ratification. The most common
example of vicarious liability is the liability of an employer for the torts of his employees committed
in the course of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In the Court of Appeal case of Mattis v. Pollock (t/a Flamingos Nightclub) a nightclub owner was
held vicariously liable for the violent acts of an employed doorman. The Court of Appeal applied the
rationale of Lister and held that a "broad" approach was required in assessing whether an individuals
acts were sufficiently connected with the duties of his employment so as to justify imposing
vicarious liability.
Vicarious Liability under a statutory duty
An employer can also be held vicariously liable for an employee's breach of a statutory duty. This
duty differs to that of a common law duty in that the duty does not rise by operation of common law
principles, but by statute. As such, the statute imposes a duty on the employee personally and makes
no reference to the employer. An employer can be held liable for the breach of a statutory duty even
where the statutory duty is owed by the employee personally and individually. This circumstance
would potentially arise in the context of harassment within the workplace, where one employee has
been harassed or bullied by another– see the case of Majrowski v. Guy's and St Thomas's NHS
Trust. However, emphasis will be placed on the intention of the legislature in creating the statute in
deciding whether vicarious liability should be imposed.
Conclusion
Where vicarious liability is imposed on an employer, both the

Analysis Of Kennett V. Nationwide News Pty Ltd
Question 1
Kennett v. Nationwide News Pty Ltd concerned a newspaper article published one day after the then
Victorian Premier – the state's Political leader – and his wife announced their separation. The
Australian ran a feature article, headed 'A House Divided', which examined stresses facing the
couple in public life. The plaintiff pleaded four imputations :
the Plaintiff, whilst living with his wife Felicity, was sexually involved with other women;
the Plaintiff, whilst living with his wife Felicity, betrayed her by having sexual relations with one
named woman:
the Plaintiff, whilst living with his wife Felicity, betrayed her by having sexual relations with a
second named woman;
the Plaintiff lied by falsely denying that ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The questions addressed in this particular hypothetical case distinguish between crimes (a) and (b),
both perpetrated by a person of generally well–accepted standing. The only distinction between
them is in relation to the sentence imposed. The law does not prohibit the publication of an
individual 's criminal convictions, irrespective of the type of crime or misdemeanor as seen in
Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd.
Hence, the instance referred to here, concerning a news report regarding Malcolm Somebody being
charged of a sexual offence, demonstrate behaviour which is not fitting for a person of any particular
standing, therefore there is limited room for lowering individual any more in the eyes of society. At
any rate, hypothesis (b) would go before a jury. As long as the report only covers facts without any
additional sting, there is little or no legal remedy, not even a right to protection under the privacy
provisions .
Nevertheless, should the reporting go beyond the necessary degree of straight fact, the professor
could theoretically bring a case of defamation but would need to face the defence 's plea of veritas.
Still, juries can be persuaded that newspaper reports can contain libel or defamatory statements. The
English libel case of Alan Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd , concerning a paedophile (a
fact in itself not subject to

Case Study
Introduction to Business Law Individual Assignment–1 Suresh.Gouri Pae2008 (A) What action or
actions in tort may the commercial prawn trawlers claim against Megabucks Ltd? Issue: Does
Megabucks Ltd owe duty of care , yes they owe duty of care because of their 'negligence' the
commercial prawn trawlers were unable to fish in the bay for 12months. The commercial prawn
trawlers can certainly claim the damages from the Megabucks Ltd who has failed to perform their
duty of care. To be liable for negligence to another person, a person, a person must owe a legal duty
of care to that other person, One explanation is that a duty of care means a duty to take reasonable
care or to exercise reasonable skill( both duties) ( The ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Reliance: Reasonable reliance is an important element of a duty of care, In addition, the defendant 's
knowledge and control and the plaintiff 's vulnerability can point to a duty of care being owed.
Apply: Whether a duty of care exists in a particular situation is a question of law and not fact this
means that the judge decides if there is a duty of care (a question of law). If there is a jury, it decides
whether the facts fit the duty of care ( a question of face). The classic test of when there is a duty of
care under the "neighbour" test of Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson is the place to start.
Neighbour Test: In English law there must be, and is, some general conception of relations giving
rise to a duty of care, of which the particular cases found in the books are but instances. The liability
for negligence, whether you style it such or treat it as in other systems as a species of 'culpa ', is no
doubt based upon a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay.
But acts or omissions which any moral code would censure cannot in a practical world be treated so
as to give a right to every person injured by them to demand relief. In this way rules of law arise
which limit the range of complainants and the extent of their remedy. The rule that you are to love
your neighbour becomes, in law, you must

White V Jones Case Study
Abstract:
The case of White v Jones [1995] is a famous case in the English tort law which concerns the
liability of solicitors to the beneficiaries of the will with whom they have no contractual relationship
if they performed their work negligently. This case raises the questions of professional negligence,
the third party beneficiary (relationship) and the duty of care. In the case of White v Jones the Court
of Appel followed the statement of Vice–Chancellor Megarry in Ross v Caunters [1980] : "In
considering the liability question, it is of the utmost importance to keep in mind that if there is no
liability, the result is striking: the only person who has a valid claim against the solicitor has suffered
no loss, and the only person ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Another significant part of the process of the decision in the case of White v Jones is the case of
Robertson v Fleming [1861] . Sir Donald Nicholls V.–C. expressed his disagreement with the
decision in Robertson v Fleming [1861] which was that in the absence of a contract between a
solicitor and a third party, the solicitor was not liable to the intended beneficiary. Lord Campbell L.C
stated his opinion on this decision:
"If this were law a disappointed legatee might sue the solicitor employed by a testator to make a will
in favour of a stranger, whom the solicitor never saw or before heard of, if the will were void for not
being properly signed and attested. I am clearly of opinion that this is not the law of Scotland, nor of
England, and it can hardly be the law of any country where jurisprudence has been cultivated as a
science."
The House of Lords in White v Jones [1995] held that the law had moved on from the time of the
case of Robertson v Fleming [1861] and that the court was free to depart/ stray from the views
expressed in

Analysis Of Gregg V Scott, Mr. Malcolm Gregg ( ' The...
Introduction
In Gregg v Scott, Mr. Malcolm Gregg ('the claimant'), the House of Lords examined the law of
negligence in the area of personal injury. In order for the claimant to have a successful claim in
court, the onus to shifts to the claimant to demonstrate that a duty of care owed by the doctor, there
was a breach of that duty, an injury was sustained, and the negligence on behalf of the doctor Dr.
Andrew Scott ('defendant') was a cause of the 'injury'. If these elements are not satisfied, the
claimant may lose its entitlement to full compensation.
Claimant, on the balance of probabilities (51% or more), must prove that the negligence was a result
of the injury, to establish causation. If this is successful, the claimant will be entitled to full
compensation. If on balance of probability is 49% or less, the patient will not be entitled to damages.
The issue in court was the difficulty to rely on the accuracy of the probability as evidentiary basis.
History of litigation
Trial Court Judgment
At trial court, the judge deliberated that Dr. Scott was negligent for failing to show that the growth
might not have been benign. The judge ruled the defendant was a breach of duty.
On the question of whether the negligence caused the by the defendant was a contributing factor to
the claimant being unlikely to survive the ten years, the court held that the claimant would have had
no chance to survive the ten year period, even with treatment.
The trial judge relied on

Daniel
TORT QUESTION 1: A seven–year–old boy followed his dog into Mr. Howe's backyard. The boy
fell into a large hole dug by Mr. Howe in preparation for a tree that had been ordered. The boy broke
his arm in the fall. At the hospital a doctor employed there for four years treated the boy. The doctor
did not set the boy's arm because he failed to see on the x–ray and indication that the arm was
broken. The arm healed improperly. When the boy kept complaining, his parents took him to the
family doctor that discovered the break. The boy had his arm re–broken so that it could be set
properly. On these facts, discuss the following: a) Was the boy a trespasser? If so, does this mean
that the owner of the land did not owe the boy a duty of care? ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Historically, the transferred intent doctrine has been applied to five intentional torts. The five torts
are battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to chattel, and trespass to land. Under transferred
intent, if the defendant intends any of these five torts, but her acts, instead or in addition, result in
any of the other five intentional torts, the defendant is liable, even though she did not intend the
other tort. The transferred intent rule may have emerged because these five torts were historically
associated with a single action for trespass. The concept of trespass was not limited to the
contemporary meaning of trespass to land, but embodied many types of direct injuries. It is
important, consequently, Torts, is a large area of private law concerned with compensating those
who have been injured by the wrongdoing of others to recognize that courts have applied the
concept only to these five intentional torts. The law of torts is mainly judge–made law; courts over
the centuries have defined people 's rights and obligations with respect to their fellows. These are
constantly in flux and change to meet new technological and social concerns. The example for our
case would be the case law of Donoghue v. Stevenson. This is one of the most important cases in
English tort law history. The judges determined that each citizen has a duty of care for his or her
fellow citizens where it is

Loss Of Chance Is An Alternative Cause Of Action
Loss of chance is identified as an alternative cause of action , particularly, in cases of medical
negligence. In recent cases, where actions based on causation have failed, it has succeeded. The
onus lies on the plaintiff to prove negligence by the defendant and loss of a chance of a better
outcome. However, a plaintiff cannot establish that the defendant's negligence probably caused their
injury. The concept of loss of chance is defined as a doctrine that permits the recovery of damages
upon destruction or reduction of prospects to ultimately achieve a more favorable outcome. In the
case of Rufo v Hosking, the court found that – "In order to recover damages for the loss of a chance
of a better outcome, the plaintiff is required to ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Consequently, provided negligence is found, more than a one percent (1%) chance of a better
outcome needs to be proven by a plaintiff in order to be awarded damages. However, the
quantification of damages is related to the quantification of the loss of chance in relation to the
injury. The value of the injury could be a small or a large fraction of the amount.
Most recently courts have established the loss of chance doctrine as an alternative or additional
cause of action in medical negligence litigation. Although loss of chance had earlier been recognised
in the High Court of Australia as an suitable cause of action in non–medical cases of negligence as
well, in the matter of Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum NL, and had been considered but not
implemented in the medical cases of Chappel v Hart, and Naxakis v Western General Hospital, it
was a major factor in the New South Wales medical case of Rufo v Hosking. Subsequently, the loss
of chance has been the basis of several other successful cases of negligence against doctors or health
authorities in New South Wales, including Halverson v Dobler, State of New South Wales v Burton,
and Tabet v Mansour. It was also successful in the matter of Gavalas v Singh.
In contrast, the concept of loss of chance was rejected in the case of Gregg v Scott, and has not yet
been reconsidered by the High Court. Despite the fact that this case has no authority in Australia, the

Elements of Negligent Tort: Analysis and Remedies
Introduction The law of torts can be traced back to English Common Law and has become and
integral part of Anglo–American Law for hundreds of years .These laws have been modified many
times since the late 1800's by state legislatures and these changes have given plaintiffs more chance
of success when bringing forth their claims. Original tort law included coverage for injuries suffered
while in the workplace but this since has been removed entirely from tort law and replaced with the
state administered workers compensation systems. In order for a plaintiff to utilize the law of torts
certain elements need to be present so that a reasonable measure of success can be ensured in the
outcome.
Elements of Negligent Tort ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Breach of Duty: In order for breach of duty to take place, there must be a duty owed to the plaintiff,
and the defendant must be neglect of the duty that he owed. In order to test whether the duty was
breached or not, there is a reasonable person test. This test is objective in two senses. First, it
compares the defendant's actions, with those that hypothetical person with ordinary prudence and
sensibilities would have taken or not under the circumstances. Second the test focuses on the
defendant's behavior, rather than on the defendant's subjective mental state. This test allows decision
to be made on the facts of the case and for the prosecution, to determine whether there was
reasonable foresee–ability of harm. According to Mallor even if the defendant has breached a duty,
and plaintiff has actually suffered injury there is no liability for negligence without necessary
causation link between breach, and injury. Hence causation link involves three issues: 1) was the
breach an actual cause of the injury? 2) Was the breach a proximate cause of the injury? 3) What
was the effect of any intervening cause, arising after the breach to cause the injury? Thus both
actual, and proximate, causes are necessary for a negligence recovery.
Actual Cause: According to Mallor to determine

English Tort Law And The Public Sector
English Tort Law and the Importance of Duty of Care in the Public Sector (Based on the Kent v
Griffith Case from the year 2000)
Tort Law is concerned with accidental injuries and deals with the distribution of losses occurred
during those injuries. Every country has its own statutory law , thus according to these laws acts in
its own way in different situations. Public health and ambulance services are of great importance
when it comes to preventing injuries and damages. In the UK, before the 2000s, ambulances were
not obliged (by common law) to provide emergency service, but were rather considered an ordinary
health care provider. Therefore, in a lot of cases it would be difficult to put the liability on the
defendant, which automatically leads to a higher number of injuries and damages. In the case Kent v
Griffith an important outcome and rule is created, which creates the hope of decreasing damages
significantly in the future. I will argue that the duty of care in the health care system (especially
ambulances) should be treated with greater attention, as it can lessen enormous damages caused by
delayed service and unreasoned explanations. Furthermore, I will try and prove that, due to
negligence, the damages created by delayed services, thus lack of duty of care in the public sector,
are far exceeding precaution costs; Moreover, they harm the economy and social well–being as well.
Duty of care can be viewed as a ''control device'' used for determining when the defendant

Occupiers' Liability from the Common Law
The first point to note when analysing occupiers' liability is that originally it was separate to the
general principles of negligence which were outlined in Donoghue v Stevenson .The reason for this
"pigeon hole approach" was that the key decision of occupiers' liability, Indermaur v Dames was
decided sixty six years prior to the landmark decision of Donoghue v Stevenson . McMahon and
Binchy state the reason why it was not engulfed into general negligence, was because it "... had
become too firmly entrenched by 1932 ... to be swamped by another judicial cross–current"
Following on from Indermaur v Dames the courts developed four distinct categories of entrant
which I will now examine in turn.
The first category of entrant is that of a ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This was evident in the case of Rooney v Connolly where liability was imposed on a priest when a
girl that he had encouraged to visit the local church injured herself stretching over lighted candles.
The permission to enter the land as a licensee may be expressed or implied. An issue arises when the
permission is implied. Often children entered premises without the permission of the landowner
without the objection of the landlord. But did this make them a licensee or a trespasser? Fitzgibbon J
put it eloquently in Kenny v ESB "An open gate or an unfenced field does not amount to an
invitation or licence urbi et orbi to enter upon private property" Often the courts would have to
interpret particularly in cases involving minors whether tolerance could be implied as amounting to
permission to enter the land. The courts would often analyse the tolerance issue in deciding cases as
best to deliver justice in cases where there was no clear outcome.
The fourth category is that of a trespasser. This category has radically developed in the last thirty
years. Originally a trespasser was owed a very limited duty of care. The duty owed to a trespasser
was that they could not be injured "intentionally and not to act with reckless disregard to their
person or property". The idea behind such a narrow duty was that a trespasser was illegal on the
property and that the occupier should owe little

The Purpose Of Tort Law
"The essential purpose and most basic principle of tort law is that the plaintiff must be placed in the
position he or she would have been in absent the defendant's fault or negligence." It is impossible to
fully restore the plaintiff, as he will never be fully restored. However, compensation is the best way
to put the plaintiff back into his original position. Even though most resources of the tort system are
spent on dealing with claims, it is a very slow process as it is so complex because it involves many
parties. It is often time consuming and expensive to file a claim, making it very cost–ineffective.
The increased involvement of insurance companies has made it even more time consuming, with the
introduction of their own ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The court system does not seem to base their judgment on legal elements and legal facts but a major
consideration on public policy and interest. This can be seen in Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington
Hospital , where the ratio is that the patient would have died anyway in spite of the doctor's
examination. To impose a liability on the doctor would give rise to many claims, involving many
unnecessary claims. However, doctors' duty is to examine a patient and decide on the plan of
treatment, where in this case, the doctor did not even examine the patient. The reluctance of the
court to impose a liability on public bodies can also be seen in Alcock v Chief Constable of South
Yorkshire Police . The court was reluctant to impose a liability on the police force, even when the
Taylor Report reported that the accident was caused by the negligence of the police force, as they let
too many supporters in. There are enough facts in these two cases to impose a liability on the doctor
and the police department respectively, however, the reluctant approach from the court towards
public bodies have resulted in unsuccessful claims in these two cases. In Alcock v Chief Constable
of South Yorkshire Police , there is also the issue regarding the cost of deterring beneficial activities.
As the 'Hillsborough disaster' was broadcasted live, many

Negligence And Its Impact On Society
Negligence is a tort that is a major focus point in how people and organizations interact with each
other. How the tort of negligence developed is critical for understanding who is held accountable
when a civil wrong has occurred. Negligence focuses on three basic elements: a duty of care, a
breach of said duty, and causation of damage. The goal of this assessment is to examine the
development of these three elements of negligence tort law in England, and hopefully explain its
significance in how it affects society. First, a duty of care must be established for a legitimate
negligence claim. The concept of a duty of care is that it demonstrates the defendant (the one
wrongdoer) had some sort of responsibility to take care of the claimant (the wronged party who is
bringing forth the claim). In English law, the landmark case that conceived the idea of establishing a
duty of care was Donoghue v Stevenson (1932 UKHL 100), a case involving a woman who drank a
bottle of ginger beer and found a dead snail in the bottle, thus bringing suit against the manufacturer.
The House of Lords ruled in the claimant's favor, stating the manufacturer does owe a duty of care
to the consumer. Arguably the most integral part of the ruling in Donoghue is where Lord Atkin
states:
You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would
be likely to injure your neighbor. Who, then, in law is my neighbor? The answer seems to be –
persons who are so closely and

Loss Of Chance Is An Alternative Cause Of Action
Loss of chance is known as an alternative cause of action, particularly, in cases of medical
negligence. In recent cases, where actions based on causation have failed, it has succeeded. The
onus lies on the plaintiff to prove negligence by the defendant and loss of a chance of a better
outcome. However, a plaintiff cannot establish that the defendant's negligence probably caused their
injury. The concept of loss of chance is defined as a doctrine that permits the recovery of damages
upon destruction or reduction of prospects to ultimately achieve a more favorable outcome. In one
particular case, Rufo v Hosking [2002], the court found, "In order to recover damages for the loss of
a chance of a better outcome, the plaintiff is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that
there did exist a chance that the plaintiff would have had a better outcome had the negligence in
treatment not occurred". This is where the qualitative concept of loss of chance was described and
formed.
However it can be argued that there are imperative inquiries in regards to the quantification of the
probability of a chance of a better outcome and the quantification of damages. In a legal sense, the
former is quantified on the balance of probabilities. Although unlike causation, this does not simply
mean more than 50%, nor does it mean beyond random possibility, which doctors might expect. In
the context of the balance of probabilities of a loss of chance, the probability that a chance of a

Essay about The English Law on Vicarious Liability
The English Law on Vicarious Liability
An employer is responsible for damage caused by the torts of his employees acting in the course of
employment. This is known as 'vicarious liability'[1]. Essentially, vicarious liability is where the
employer is generally substituted in terms of liability for the employee, the employee also has
liability but the resources of the employer such as insurance makes them more financially attractive
to the claimant. The mechanism of vicarious liability is arguably the best compromise between the
needs of tort victims and the freedom of businesses as the employer usually has insurance to cover
the tort of the employee, making it more financially viable to the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The principle of vicarious liability is very controversial as it is quite broad, and the fact that personal
fault on behalf of the employer is not required means that it is sometimes more difficult to attribute
blame on big companies or corporations than individuals.
However, there are many aspects of vicarious liability that make it suitable for its use. In nearly
every case the employer is in the best position financially to compensate a claimant as they always
have the 'deepest pocket'. The whole purpose of the law of tort is to compensate the victims, the
resources in question that enable the employer to have the 'deepest pocket is provided through
insurance. Many employees are not worth suing, therefore without the insurance industry the present
tort system could not operate[4].
Vicarious liability forces the employer to continually strive for accident prevention. If every
employee was insured individually it is unlikely that the employer would take such a keen interest as
there is no direct liability. Employers generally therefore assess the suitability of the staff, give them
adequate training and dismiss any that are unreasonably risky to reduce the risk of any torts
occurring.
Another argument that justifies the existence of

Economic Loss

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Lakeisha Jones

More from Lakeisha Jones (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Economic Loss