Negligence

Negligence: Standard of Care

  • The standard of care in tort law is the level of caution and diligence a defendant is expected to exercise to avoid breaching their duty of care.

  • The standard is assessed objectively, based on what a hypothetical "reasonable person" would do in the same circumstances.

  • It does not depend on the defendant’s personal abilities or characteristics, ensuring a uniform measure of responsibility.

  • A breach occurs if the defendant’s actions fall below this standard, and this failure causes foreseeable harm to the plaintiff.

Key Factors in Determining the Standard:

  • Likelihood of Harm: If the risk of harm is high, the standard requires greater care to prevent it.

  • Seriousness of Harm: If the potential harm is severe, the defendant must take more significant precautions.

  • Burden of Precautions: The practicality and cost of avoiding the harm are balanced against the risk. If reasonable steps could have been taken without undue burden, the standard may demand them.

================================

Novus Actus Interveniens

Literal Meaning

  • The Latin expression means “a new intervening act”.

  • It refers to a legal doctrine that breaks the chain of causation between an initial wrongful act and the ultimate harm.

  • This prevents a defendant from being held liable for the full extent of the consequences.

  • If a new event steps in and becomes the dominant cause of the harm, the original wrongful act is no longer considered the proximate cause.

Criteria

For an act to qualify as a novus actus interveniens, it must satisfy three key criteria:

  • Independence: The act must not be a direct result of the defendant’s negligence.

  • Unforeseeability: A reasonable person in the defendant’s position could not have anticipated the intervening act.

  • Significance: The act must be a substantial cause of the plaintiff’s harm, overshadowing the defendant’s original negligence.

================================

Thin Skull Rule

  • Meaning: "You take the victim as you find him."

  • If an injured person has an underlying weakness or predisposition that worsens the injury inflicted by the tortfeasor, the presence of that weakness does not break the chain of causation.

  • Case Example: Smith v Leech Brain and Co Ltd