General principles and negligence - 1

1. General Idea of Tort

• Definition of Tort:

  • private law, unlike contract

  • private wrong (tort=wrong)

  • A civil or private wrong that provides legal remedies to individuals who have suffered harm or injury.

  • The goal of tort law is to restore the injured party to the position they were in before the tort occurred.

  • Example case: Lord Blackburn in Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880) stated the purpose is to put the injured party in the same position as before the wrongdoing.

• Categories of Tort Law:

  • Negligence: Causing damage to another by breaching a duty of care owed to them

  • Torts to Land: nuisances

  • Personality Torts: Such as defamation and misuse of private information.

  • Trespass to Person: Encompasses acts like assault, battery, and false imprisonment.

2. Introduction to Negligence

• Definition: Negligence occurs when a person's actions or inactions cause harm to another, leading to moral and legal responsibility to rectify that harm through compensation.Negligence liability corrects the injustice by requiring them to pay compensation.

• Concepts Involved:

  • Compensation: Financial reparation for harm.

  • Deterrence: Aims to prevent future wrongdoing by holding individuals accountable.

3. Elements of Negligence

• The four essential components of a negligence claim include:

  1. Damage (Actionable Damage): Loss or injury that is eligible for legal claim.

  2. Duty of Care: The legal obligation to avoid causing harm.

  3. Breach of Duty: Failure to meet the standard of care required.

  4. Causation: Establishing that the breach of duty directly caused the damage.

• Defences: Legal arguments to negate liability in negligence claims.

4. Case Examples in Negligence

• Andy and Maria Scenario:

  • Andy, while drink-driving, swerves his car towards Maria while she’s crossing the road. He hits Maria and breaks her leg.

  • he is liable to compensate maria

  • case application: rothwell v chemical & insulaing ltd (2007)

  • think about these elements: Damage (Actionable Damage), Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Causation

5.1 Identification of Elements in the Scenario:

• Damage: Actionable damage to Maria ( her broken leg).

• Duty of Care: Did Andy owe a duty of care to pedestrian Maria?

• Breach of Duty: Did Andy breach that duty while driving intoxicated?

• Causation: Did Andy's actions directly cause Maria's injury?

6. Understanding Actionable Damage

• Actionable damage must meet criteria to be considered in a negligence claim.

• damages: physical damage, phychiatric and economic loss

• Cases Referenced:

  • Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Ltd (2007):

    • context: some employees were in the factory, they were exposed to asbethose, but they devoloped plueral plaques in the lungs ( they dont not cause harm, they are inoffenesive )

    • judgement: The court said they do not have actionable damages as it did not their health and doesnt harm their capability to work. they weren’t worse off physically or economically

    • precedent for actionable damage that is physical

  • Hinz v Berry (1970):

    • context: mrs hins and her husband and their 8 children some were natural some were adopted. They had a big van. They decided to stop the van at a lay by and had a picinic. she decided to cross the rpoad to pick up flowers. while she was picking up flowers, mr berry with a really fast car, drove very carelessy and drove right in to the van, it killed the husband and seriously injured the kids in the van. She developed morbid depression and shock ( physciatric harm). precedent for phychiatric harm, always has to be a recognisable physchiatric illness.

    • judgement: The court determined that Mrs. Hinz was entitled to compensation for her psychiatric injury as it was a foreseeable result of Mr. Berry’s negligence. Lord Denning explained that, under English law, damages are generally not awarded for grief alone; however, since Mrs. Hinz developed a recognized psychiatric illness due to the trauma, she could claim compensation. This case thus reinforced that damages for psychiatric harm could be awarded when the condition goes beyond mere grief and sorrow, and results from an incident that the defendant could reasonably foresee would cause such harm​