What do you need to know about the basic principle
Liability In Negligence
There are 4 main sectors in the basic principles of the Tort Of Negligence:
- The basic principles of the tort of negligence
- Duty of Care including the neighbour principle and the Caparo three part test
- Breach of Duty, this is where the defendant is compared to a reasonable man
- damage including causation of damages and remoteness.
Basic Principles of the Tort Of Negligence:
Torts are also known as civil wrongs, these wrongs allow the victims to claim compensation. The more important form of tort is when the defendant is in a situation where an injury or damage occurs due to careless behaviour done by the defendant.
Duty Of Care
Duty Of Care:
This was first discovered int he case known as Donoghue v Stevenson
In this case the denfendant went to a cafe and bought a bottle of ginger beer. The bottle was opaque so the contents of the bottle could not be seen by the victims. She poured out half the bottle and poured in over her ice cream. She poured the rest into a glass and a decomposed snail came out. She claimed she felt sick.
She sued the manufactures and the court described that the manufactures had a duty to ensure that the contents of the drink were safe for human consumption. As soon as the lady bought the drink, she was ensuring that the bottle of ginger beer was safe for the consumption.
To ensure that the number of cases that came to court about this particular situation was limited, the court set out a 3 part test known as the Caparo 3 Part Test, to see whether the case would be likely to suceed in court.
Caparo 3 Part Test
1. Was loss or damage to the victim reasonably foreseeable?
In Jolly v Sutton Borough Council (2000), the court held that it was foreseable that a young boy would try and fix a boat. And it was also foreseeable that they boy may be injured by it.
In Langley v Dray (1998) it was foreseeable that the police car would try and keep up with the criminlas that they are following by increasing their speed which could result in a injury.
2. Was their suffecient proximity?
This was shown in Bournhill v Young (1943), In this case the defendant was in a car accident, a woman who was 8 months pregnant was in the area, although she did not see the crash and although she was not in the nearby area, she heard the sound and she also saw blodd on the floor, this caused her to suffer from shock and deliver a stillborn baby.
This was shown in McLoghin v O'Brian (1983) In this case the defendant was showcked and suffered nervous shock when she saw her children and husband in hospital after they were involved in a serioud accident.
3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?
Floodgate argument stated that becuase their may be too many claims, they cannot accept one case if similar cases can arise