Law of Tort

Negligence

Meaning of law of tort
Liability arises from the breach of a
duty primarily fixed by the law, this
duty is towards persons generally and
its breach is redressible by an action for
damages.
negligence
 Definition

 Negligence means more than heedless or careless

conduct…it properly connotes the complex concept of
duty, breach and damage thereby suffered by the
person to whom the duty was owing.(Lord Wright in
Lochgelly Iron and Coal Co. v Mc Mullan)

 Breach of a legal duty to take care which results in

damage to the plaintiff.
Element of negligence
1. Duty of care

2. Breach of duty

3. Damage
 Duty of care

A person will be liable under negligence

if he is under a legal duty to take care
 The test for the existence of duty

 neighbour principle

- A person only owes duty to take care to his

neighbour

- You must not injure your neighbour. You must

avoid act which you can reasonably foresee
would be likely to injure your neighbour
Who is my neighbour?

-Persons who are so closely & directly

affected by my act.

-Persons whom you can reasonably foresee

to be directly affected by your action
 Case: Donoghue v. Stevenson

 Issue: whether defendant owed duty of care

to plaintiff?

 Held: the test to determine the existence of

duty is whether plaintiff is the neighbour of
defendant?
Duty of care
Duty of care only arises when damage to the
plaintiff is foreseeable.

-defendant must reasonably foresee that his act will

cause injury to the plaintiff
Haley v. London Electricity Board

King v. Philip

Bourhill v. Young
Breach of duty

 When does the duty is broken?

Do something inconsistent to act of a
reasonable man.

Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co.

“ Negligence is the omission to do something
which a reasonable man would do or doing
something which a prudent and reasonable
man would not do”.
Breach of duty

 Test: reasonable man test

 Would a reasonable man has acted as the

defendant has done if the reasonable man
faced with the same circumstances as the
defendant
 Who is a reasonable man?

 Ordinary man without any particular

skill unless he is actually one
Breach of duty

 Factors to be considered:

1. Magnitude of the risk

2. Importance of the object to be
attained
3. Practicability of precautions
 Magnitude of the risk

To what extent defendant’s conduct is risky?

-Degree of care required is high when the
magnitude of the risk is high

1. Likelihood of the injury

2. Seriousness of the injury
Bolton v. Stone

Hilder v. Associated Portland Cement

Manufacturers Ltd

Paris v. Stepney borough Council

Importance of the object to be
attained
 Have to balance between risk & importance
of object to be attained
-if the purpose to be served is very
important, defendant not liable for taking that
risk

 Watt v. Hertfordshire County Council

Practicability of precautions

 The risk must be measured against the

1) precautions that need to be taken to
eliminate the risk and
2) The precautionary measures
undertaken by the defendant

 Latimer v. A.E.C. Ltd

 Damage
 Breach of duty must be primary cause of damage

 Test: the but-for test

-whether damage suffered by the plaintiff is the
consequence of the defendant’s breach of duty

But-for the defendant’s breach of duty, would the

plaintiff have suffered any injury or damage?
Barnett v.
Chelsea & Kensington Hospital
Management Committee
Intervening Acts
 When does it happen?

when another happening takes place

after the breach of duty by defendant
which break in the chain of causation.
Types of intervening acts
1. Intervening natural event
2. Intervening act of a third party
3. Intervening act of the plaintiff
Intervening natural event
 Loss is caused by a natural event which
occurs independently of the defendant’s
breach of duty

 Effect: absolve the defendant of any

liability if the breach of duty does not
increase the probability of risk damage
to the plaintiff
Carslogie Steamship Co. Ltd v. Royal
Norwegian Government
Intervening act of a third party

1. The breach of duty causes a third

party to act which subsequently
causes the damage- defendant liable

2. The breach of duty gives an

opportunity to the third party to act
which he does on his own accord
independently-defendant not liable
Intervening act of a third party

 The Oropesa

 Haynes v. Harwood
Intervening act of the plaintiff

 Plaintiff’s own conduct cause of his

damage

 McKew v. Holland & Hannen & Cubitts

(Scotland) Ltd