Liability in Negligence (Big One)

Overview of Negligence in Tort Law

• Negligence involves a breach of legal duty causing damage to another person or property

• The claimant must prove the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused damage as a result

• The burden of proof is on the claimant who must establish their case on the balance of probabilities.

Duty of Care

Donoghue v Stevenson - established the Neighbour Principle

Caparo v Dickman- Introduced the Caparo test:

• Was the damage reasonably forseeable

• Is there a sufficient proximate relationship between the claimant and the defendant

• Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire: Clarified that the Caparo test is not a universal formula; established principle and precedent should be considered first.

Recognising a Potential Action in Negligence

• Identify a relationship where one party owes a legal duty of care to another

• Apply the Caparo test (unless precedent is clear)

• Check for proximity, foreseeability, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty

Caparo v Dickman (Caparo Test)

• Was the damage reasonably foreseeable

• Is there a sufficient proximate relationship between the claimant and the defendant

• Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.

Objective Standard of Care (breach of duty)

• Reasonable Man Standard - The defendnat is judged against the standard of a ‘reasonable person’ (objective test), not their own subjective abilities (Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks)

• Special characteristics (e.g. professional skills) may raise the standard, but personal attributes (e.g. inexperience) do not lower it (Nettleship v Weston) (Bolam v Friern)

Risk Factors affecting standard

• Likelihood of Harm - Greater risk requires greater care (Bolton v Stone

• Seriousness of Potential Harm - If consequences are grave, more precautions required (Paris v Stepney BC)

• Cost and practicality of Precautions (Latimer v AEC)

• Social utility of actions

Factual and Legal Causation

• Factual Causation (‘But for’ test, R v White)

• Legal Causation (‘Remoteness of Damage’.) Type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable (The Wagon Mound case)

• Intervening Acts (‘Novus Actus Interviens’)

Elements of Negligence Action

• Duty of care

• Breach of Duty

• Causation

• Damage

Defences

• Contributory Negligence

• Volenti non fit injuria (consent)

• Illegality (no liability if the claimant was engaging in unlawful activity when injured)

Burden and standard of proof

• Burden of Proof - Lies on the claimant to prove the elements of negligence

• Standard of Proof - On the balance of probabilities

Compensation - The Role of Damages

Purpose: to put the claimant in the position they would have been in had the tort not occurred

• Special damages - Quantifiable losses (e.g. medical expenses, repair costs)

• General Damages - non quantifiable losses (e.g. Pain and suffering)

damages may be reduced if contributory negligence is established