tort of Negligence and its application .

law of negligence

1. TORT LAW
(NEGLIGENCE)
Duty of care

2. Objectives
At the end of the lesson students will be able to;
Define negligence
List and explain the elements of negligence
Explain the duty of care owed to people and damage to property.
Describe the development of duty of care
Apply the neighbor principle and Caparo test.

3. NEGLIGENCE
What is Negligence?
Negligence is when someone owes you a duty of care, but
has failed to act according to a reasonable standard of
care and this has caused you injury.
You cannot take legal action against someone for being
negligent unless you suffer some harm or loss as a result.
A tort consisting of the breach of a duty of care resulting
in damage to the claimant.

4. Negligence
Elements of Negligence / Claim of negligence;
In order to succeed in a claim of negligence, a claimant must show that:
1.The defendant owed him a duty of care
2.There was a breach of the duty of care
3.The harm suffered was caused by the breach of a duty of care
4.The harm was reasonably foreseeable
Types of harm :
1.Personnel injury
2.Damage to property
3.Economic loss

5. Negligence
What is Duty of Care?
The law says that if it is reasonably foreseeable that you might suffer some sort of harm or
loss because of something someone else does, then that person owes you a duty of care.
This duty of care only applies in areas where you rely on them. For example, a doctor
would owe you a duty of care to make sure that they give you proper medical attention, but
would not owe you a duty of care in other areas like taking care of your finances.
tort of negligence was introduced in the famous case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932).
It also established the Neighbor Principle

6. Neighbour principle
Neighborhood principle :
whether there is a duty of care depends on whether the claimant is a neighbor in the legal
sense . A person is a ‘neighbor’ if what you do will directly affect him Duty to take reasonable
care to avoid acts or omissions ‘which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure
your neighbor’.
What is standard of care?
The standard of care is the level of care they should take to meet their duty of care. While
this depends on the situation, there are a few guidelines which must always be followed.
A person must act as a reasonable person of the same skills would in the same situation.
For example, a support worker is expected to have more skills and training than a friend or
untrained family member, and is expected to use these skills in doing their work.

7. Neighbour principle
DONOGHUE Vs STVENSON ( 1932 )
On 26 Aug. 1928, MrsMay Donoghue met her friend at
Minchella’scafe at 1 WellmeadowStreet. Her friend ordered
and paid for an ice-cream and a bottle of ginger beer. The
ginger beer was manufactured by MrStevenson. It came in
an opaque bottle , so no one was able to see, what is in the
bottle. When MrsDonoghue’s friend was pouring out the
contents of the bottle, they saw floating out of the bottle
what seemed to be partly decomposed remains of a snail.

8. Neighbour principle
MrsDonoghue claimed she was made ill by what she had seen. She
had medical treatment for three days and later again three weeks
treatment , at the Glasgow Royal infirmary. She also claimed that she
had suffered from ‘nervous shock
There was no contractual relationship between MrMinchellaand Mrs
Donoghue. The only person she could sue was David Stevenson, the
manufacturer of the ginger beer. The question was, on what grounds?
The case proceeded through various appeals to the House of Lords.
The Lords decided in favourof MrsDonoghue, a new precedent was
established and a lady who said she was ‘not worth five pounds in all
the world’ became the reason why, these days, millions of pounds have
been won by claimants based on the tort of negligence.

9. A Two stage test
Anns v Merton London Borough[1978] .
Facts
The local authority approved building plans for a block of flats and the flats were built later that year.
However, by 1970 structural movement had begun to occur in the properties causing cracking to the walls
and other damage, causing the properties to become dangerous. The claimant tenants in the flat began
proceedings in 1972 in negligence against the council on the basis that the council had failed to properly
inspect the building walls properly in order to ensure that the foundations were laid to the correct depth
shown in the plan.
Issues There were two specific issues. (1) Whether the council owed a duty of care to the claimants in
respect of the incorrect depth of the foundations laid by the third-party builder. (2) Whether the claim was
statute barred.
Decision/Outcome: It was held that the council may be liable in negligence, but in limited circumstances. The
relevant legislative provisions with regard to inspection did not place a duty on the council to inspect the
walls, but did allow it the power to, if it considered inspection necessary.

10. Judicial retreat
Murphy Vs Brentwood District Council (1990)’
Facts :
The defendant local authority had negligently approved plans for the footings of a house (a task which
fell within its responsibility in accordance with the provisions of the Public Health Act 1936). The
claimant purchased the property, but some time afterwards it began to subside as a result of defects in
the footings. The claimant was unable to afford the required repairs, and was forced to sell the
property as a loss. He also claimed damages for the health and safety risk which the defects had
caused to himself and his family during the time they lived at the property.
Issue :
The issue was whether the claimant was owed a duty of care with respect to the damages which he
had suffered as a result of the defective footing which had been approved by the defendant.
Decision/Outcome
:Declining to follow its previous ruling in Anns v Merton London Borough Council

11. Caparo Test
Caparo Industries pIcv Dickman [1990]
Facts :
Caparo Industries purchased shares in Fidelity Plc in reliance of the accounts which stated that the
company had made a pre-tax profit of £1.3M. In fact Fidelity had made a loss of over £400,000. Caparo
brought an action against the auditors claiming they were negligent in certifying the accounts.
Held:
No duty of care was owed. There was not sufficient proximity between Caparo and the auditors since the
auditors were not aware of the existence of Caparo nor the purpose for which the accounts were being
used by them.
The test requires the courts to ask three questions
Was the damage reasonably foreseeable
Was there a relationship of proximity between defendant and claimant
Is it just ,fair an reasonable to impose duty in this situation

12. Reasonable foreseebility
Langley v Dray
A policeman (claimant) was injured in a car crash when he was chasing the defendant, who
was driving the stolen car. The court held that the defendant knew, or ought to know, that he
was being pursued by the claimant, and therefore in increasing his speed he knew or should
have known that the claimant would also drive faster and so risk injury. It must be reasonably
foreseeable that damage or injury would be caused to the particular claimant, or to a class of
people to which he belongs.
Haley v London Electricity Board
The defendants dug a trench in the street. A shovel was laid across the hole to draw
pedestrians’ attention to it, but the claimant was blind and fell into the hole. The court held
that it was reasonably foreseeable that a blind person might risk falling in, as the number of
blind people who lived in London meant that the defendants owed a duty to this category of
people.

13. THANK YOU
ANY QUESTION