Role of Foresight in the Neighbour Principle in Modern Negligence Law

0
Business Law

1
Question 1
The tort of negligence is a main topic which has significant relevance in the modern law
system. It is referred to a legal wrong which is committed by a person by failing to comply
with his/her legal duties. These duties are imposed by the law and they are considered as
reasonable to impose on the person acting in the specific position (Luntz et al., 2017). A third
party suffered a loss or detriment due to the violation of the duties. The risks which are
suffered by the third party must be foreseeable risk in order to file a suit in the tort of
negligence. There are certain elements of negligence which are necessary to be determined
by the court while providing a judgement in the suit for negligence. The elements which are
applied in the modern cases of negligence were given in the judgement of Donoghue v
Stevenson [1932] AC 562 case. This is a landmark judgement in which the court established
key element of the tort of negligence. In this case, Lord Atkin provided a neighbour test
which was a formula which can be used by the court to impose the liability on defendant for
the foreseeability. In modern tort law, foresight is still a major criterion which is evaluated by
the court while imposing a liability on the defendant (Ferry, 2012). This paper will evaluate
the role of foresight in the neighbour principle to determine how it is a key element in modern
negligence law. Various cases will be evaluated to understand the importance of the
neighbour test and foresight while imposing a liability in the case of negligence.
The judgement of the Donoghue v Stevenson case is relevant in order to understand the key
elements which are necessary to be present while filing a successful suit for negligence. The
facts of this case were that the claimant went to a café in which she ordered a ginger beer.
The beer was severed in an opaque bottle in which inside contains were not visible. Due to
the fault of the defendant who was the manager of the café, the remains of a dead snail
were present in that bottle (Martin, 2014). After drinking the beer, the claimant suffered
serious personal injury due to illness. She filed a suit against the café owner in order to
recover for the damages which she suffered. The claim made by the claimant was
successful and it was accepted by the House of Lords. In this case, the court established the
principle of modern law of negligence and provided the judgement in the favour of the
claimant based on the neighbour test. This test was a major fact based on which a liability
was imposed on the café owner (Stychin, 2012). The key elements of negligence include a
duty of care, breach of such data, causation and remoteness of damages.
A duty of care is referred to a legal obligation which is imposed on a party. This obligation
enforces the party to take certain actions or avoid taking certain actions to ensure that third
parties did not suffer any damages. This is a significant element of negligence because a

2
person who did not owe a duty of care cannot be held liable under the suit for negligence
(Barravecchio, 2013). Therefore, the court firstly evaluate whether or not a duty was owed by
the defendant or not in the case of negligence. While determining this element, the court
applies the neighbour test which was given by Lord Atkin. The neighbour test is used by the
parties to determine the existence of a duty in order to hold a person liable for the injuries
suffered by another party based on negligence. Lord Atkin provided that this rule is based on
the fact that you should love your neighbour and must avoid injuring your neighbour. This
rule imposes a duty on parties to ensure that they maintain a reasonable care in order to
avoid any acts or omissions which would likely to cause an injury to the neighbour (Greene,
2013). Thus, the requirements of the neighbour test are divided into two parts. The first part
provides that there must be a reasonable foresight of harm and the second part provides
that there must be a relationship of proximity.
In order to apply the first principle, the judgment of the Court of Appeal given in Topp v
London Country Bus [1993] 1 WLR 976 is important. In this case, a bus was stolen by a theft
from the bus company due to the fault of the driver and the thief struck and killed a woman
on the road. Her husband filed a suit for negligence against the bus company. The court
rejected the application based on the element of neighbour test. It was held that a duty of
care was not owed to the third party because the risks were not foreseeable (Dyson, 2015).
This judgement shows that foresight of the risks is relevant in the modern law of negligence
while imposing a penalty on the defendant. Another good example was given in the case of
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004. In this case, some young defenders
were supervised by the Home Office and those defenders were left unsupervised one night
due to which they escaped and stole a boat and collide it with a yacht. The claimant who
was the owner of the yacht filed a suit for negligence against the Home Office. The House of
Lords accepted the application of the claimant based on the rule of neighbour test
(Stephenson, 2012). It was held that the risks were foreseeable and the duty was breached
due to omission of the defendant based on which a liability can be imposed.
Another element of the neighbour test is proximity in the relationship of the parties. Without a
close relationship, a duty of care cannot be imposed under the neighbour test on a party.
This was illustrated by the court in the case of Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92. In this case,
the claimant was a pregnant fishwife who was in the market when the defendant drove his
motorcycle near her and collided with a car which was 50 feet away from the claimant. The
claimant did not see the accident; therefore, she walked past to the scene where she saw a
lot of blood on the road. She went into shock and her child was still born (Butler, 2018). She
filed a suit against the defendant under a suit for negligence. The court provides its
judgement based on the neighbour test in which it was held that no duty was owed by the