The document discusses the legal concept of negligence. It defines negligence as a failure to take reasonable care when there is a duty to do so. To succeed in a negligence action, a claimant must prove that the defendant owed them a duty of care, that the defendant breached that duty, and that the breach caused injury or damage to the claimant. The document outlines various tests for establishing a duty of care and discusses liability for economic loss, nervous shock, the standard of care required, causation, and remoteness of damage in negligence claims.
2. Concept of negligence Pg 264
Concept of negligence – Pg 264
• Negligence caused by a failure to take
caused by a failure to take
reasonable care when there is a duty to do so
• Negligence caused by carelessness
(Unintentional)
(U i i l)
– The wrong is unintentional but negligent
– The defendant is held to be at fault for the
negligent of a wrong
3. To succeed
To succeed action for negligence
for negligence
Must prove 3 things
Must prove 3 things
• Duty of care
– Th d f d t
The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care
d th l i t d t f
• Breach of duty
– There was a breach of that duty by the defendant
• Consequential injury or damage
– In consequence, the claimant suffered injury or
damage or financial loss Pg 264
4. Duty of care Tests /Pg 265
Duty of care – Tests /Pg 265
• Reasonably foreseeable
y
– Would you reasonably be able to foresee the damage
caused by your negligence ?
• Proximity
– Are you sufficiently related in proximity to the other
party?
• Fair, just and reasonable
– Is it fair, just and reasonable for law to impose a duty
on you?
• Public policy
– Any public policy says that you have no duty of care
yp p y y y y
6. Restricting the duty of care
Restricting the duty of care
• You are not liable for the acts of 3rd party
You are not liable for the acts of 3 party
unless they were under your control
– Vicarious liability by employer for the acts of his
Vicarious liability by employer for the acts of his
employee done in the course of the employment
– Arbitrators, judges, lawyers in the judicial process
are immune from civil action
are immune from civil action
Pg 265
8. Liability for economic loss
Liability for economic loss
• The most common example is where a person
The most common example is where a person
who has suffered physical damage
– Make a claim for loss of business profit while
Make a claim for loss of business profit while
damage is put right
• Other situations
Other situations
– Ross v Caunters 1980
– M ih d v Industrial Tank Specialities Ltd 1986
Murihead I d t i l T k S i liti Ltd 1986
Pg 267
10. Liability for nervous shock
Liability for nervous shock
• The claimant must prove a definite and
The claimant must prove a definite and
identifiable psychiatric illness
• Cases
– McLoughlin v O’Brien 1982
– Alcock & others v Chief Constable of South
Yorkshire Police 1991
– Vernon v Bosley 1997
– McFarlane v E E Caledonia Ltd 1994
Pg 268
12. Standard of care
Standard of care
• The 2nd element that must be proven by a claimant in
an action for negligence is that there was a breach of
the duty of care by the defendant
• Do what a reasonable man would do and abstain from
doing what a reasonable man would not do
• Cases
– Nettleship v Weston 1971
v Weston
– Pg 269 & 270
14. Loss carried by the breach
Loss carried by the breach
• To decide for a claim the court considers:
To decide for a claim, the court considers:
– The breach of duty gave rise to the harm (Fact)
– The harm was not too remote from the breach
The harm was not too remote from the breach
(Law)
• A person would only be compensated if he has
suffered actual loss, injury, damage or harm as
suffered actual loss injury damage or harm as
a consequential of another’s action Pg 272
15. No claim
No claim
• Claimant followed a course of action
Claimant followed a course of action
regardless of the acts of the defedant
• A 3rd part is the actual cause of harm
A 3 part is the actual cause of harm
• A complicated series of events takes place
such that no one act was the cause of all the
h h h f ll h
harm
• An intervening act by the claimant or a 3rd
party breaks the chain of causation
16. Causation
• “But for” test
But for test
• Loss of a chance
• Multiple causes
li l
• Cases
– Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington 1969
– Hotson v East Bershire Health Authority 1987
– Wisher v Essex AHA 1988
17. Remote of damage Pg 273
Remote of damage ‐Pg 273
• Having decided whether the harm arose from
Having decided whether the harm arose from
a breach of duty, the court will finally look at
whether the harm which occurred was
whether the harm which occurred was
reasonably foreseeable
– Cases
• The Wagon Mound 1961
• Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963
Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963
• Folley v London Borough of Sutton 2000
Pg 228
18.
19. Assignment 2 Claim 2
Assignment 2 ‐ Claim 2
• Tim met an accident when he was driving a car
– Tim did not follow instruction of Khoa
– Tim was 18
– Tim was a learner driver under supervision of Khoa
p
• A shop front was damaged
– The car crashed into shop front
• Tracy suffered nervous shock
Tracy suffered nervous shock
– Because she saw Tom almost hit by the accident
• Khoa injured in the accident
– Kh did t
Khoa did not wear safety belt
f t b lt
• Khoa got brain damage
– Caused by allergic reaction followed by the injection in hospital
20.
21. Assignment Claim 3
Assignment ‐ Claim 3
• Loot carried out repair work
Loot carried out repair work
• Swish Curtain suffered loss of sales because of
Loot s repair work
Loot’s repair work