The Concept of Negligence Tort Law
6 Pages1211 Words114 Views
Added on 2020-04-07
The Concept of Negligence Tort Law
Added on 2020-04-07
ShareRelated Documents
Running head: TORT LAWTort lawName of the StudentName of the UniversityAuthor Note
TORT LAW1Issue The issue which has been identified in this case is to determine that whether the tort ofnegligence has been committee by the Mall authorities against Ronald. Relevant rules 1.Duty of care The concept of negligence has become prominent in the legal world since the case ofDonoghue v Stevenson1. In this case the court held that even where there is not relationshipbetween two person which could make them have a legal claim against each other such as acontractual relationship, they can make a claim if there is a duty of care owed by a person toanother.The concept which gave rise to the duty of care is known as the neighbor principle which hadbeen brought to the legal area through the case of Donogue v Stevenson. The court in this caseruled that like a good neighbor has a duty of care to protect his neighbor form any adverse actioncaused by him which could have an effect on the neighbor, in the same way people owe a duty ofcare to others if their actions can cause injury to the other person foreseeably. In the case of Australian Knitting Mills, Ld. v. Grant2it was ruled by the court that if areasonable person thinks that his action can cause harm to another person through his action thedefendant is said to have a duty of care towards the plaintiff. 1 1932 AC 5222 50 C. L. R. 387
TORT LAW22.Breach of the duty of care The breach of duty of care is also one of the most essential elements to establish thatwhether a negligence claim can be established or not. Even if a person owes a duty of care andharm has been caused to the other person a negligent action cannot be established if the duty ofcare was not violated by the plaintiff. The most common law test for the violation of the duty of care is the objective test whichhad been established by the landmark case of Vaughan v Menlove3in this case it was provideby the judges that in case of a negligent claim a reasonable person has to be placed in the placeof the defendant and then it has to be analyzed that the reasonable person would have been morecareful towards his actions or not. If it is found that the reasonable person would have been extracareful as compared to the defendant the duty of care is said to be violated by the defendant.In the case of Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd v Moor4it had been ruled b the court that aperson cannot be held negligent in relation to the violation of the duty of care unless the riskwhich was associated with the situation was foreseeable which means that it was a risk which aperson would have knowledge about or would likely to have known about the existence of suchrisk. In addition the person cannot be held to have violated the duty of care unless it isestablished that there was a significant harm involved in the case. In addition the case also citedthe principle used by the Vaughan case in relation to a reasonable person taking extra precaution.These provisions have also been discussed in the civil liabilities Acts of the respective states. In the case of D'Arcy v Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane5it wasprovided by the court that whether a reasonable person would have been subjected to taking3 (1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 4674 [2014] NSWCA 3945 [2017] QSC 103
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
The Tort of Negligence Law: Assignmentlg...
|7
|1186
|242
(Doc) Commercial Law : Assignmentlg...
|8
|1387
|36
Assignment on Law Negligencelg...
|13
|3690
|372
Elements of Negligence Case Study 2022lg...
|8
|2027
|30
Negligence in Common Law of Tortslg...
|7
|1727
|65
Negligence and Pure Economic Loss in Construction: A Case Study Analysislg...
|10
|2398
|112