Theory of tort law

Intention of tort law

Tort law serves to establish accountability and compensate victims where harm has been caused by the breach of a duty of care. The foundations of tort law lie in principles designed to balance public policy and individual rights while preventing the opening of the floodgates of litigation

Duty of Care

One key aspect is the duty of care established in negligence cases. The landmark case Donoghue v Stevenson established the neighbour principle which would later be refined as the three stage test from Caparo v Dickman. This test ensure harm was reasonably foreseeable, there was proximity between D and C and takes care in imposing liability - ensuring that doing so is fair just and reasonable. The court is guided by these principles as is seen in Hill v CCWY where the courts declined to impose liability to avoid a detrimental effect on public policing. Robinson v CCWY would go on to clarify that while police have immunity in investigative functions they may still be held liable for any physical harm that may be caused by their negligent actions, this case illustrates how public interest is weighed against private harm

PEL

The courts are particularly careful in addressing claims of pure economic loss. Cases of pure economic loss are not accepted by the law when caused by D’s negligent act as established in Spartan Steel v Martin in an attempt to restrict liability and avoid opening the floodgates of litigation/to prevent excessive litigation. However, in Heller v Hedley Byrne it was held that causes of PEL by negligent misstatement may be addressed by the courts where a special relationship can be proven between D and C. This highlights a balance between private and public interest.

Psychiatric Harm

Shows a restrictive approach through the necessary requirements of proximity for secondary victims as established in Alcock v CCWY - ensuring liability is only imposed where psychiatric harm is significant (Reilly v Merseyside) and foreseeable. The objective standard of care is called into question in cases of negligence, with D being held to the standard expected of a reasonable person in the same circumstances. The standard varies based upon circumstances, where a child will be held to a lower standard (Mullins v Richards) and a professional will be held to a higher standard (Bolam v Friern Hospital). This works to highlight how injustice is prevented while maintaining reasonable expectations of conduct.