The Tort of Negligence and Elements of Tort

Word limited to 2000 minimum of 10 references in apa format.

Running head: THE TORT OF NEGLIGENCE AND ELEMENTS OF TORT
The Tort of Negligence and Elements of Tort
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1The Tort of Negligence and Elements of Tort
Issue
The Issue in the given scenario:
What are the actions available in the tort of negligence if any ?
Rule
The rules applicable to prove the liability of the parties for negligent tort are as
follows:
Spandeck test formulated in the following example of “Spandeck Engineering
(S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency” that states a two-stage
determination of liability that includes proximity and policy (Anderson, 2014). The
Spandeck test articulated a two-stage determination of liability that includes the two
basic concepts; proximity and policy. The Spandeck signifies vital importance among
the laws related to negligence in Singapore because it amalgamates into one single
test and customarily, there is a various test conducted for this single solution.
In a following case example of “Alcock vs. Chief Constable of South
Yorkshire Police”, the Spandeck test was applied in cases of mental trauma and agony
(Asif, 2014). This test will be applied in cases of psychic injury claims. In this case,
the claimants suffered from mental trauma as they saw their relatives or the loved
one’s die in front of their eyes as it was showing live on the television.
The judgments of the case of Ngiam Kong Seng v CitiCab Pte Ltd have been
used in showing the liability of the parties present, whether according to it, they could
be held liable.

2The Tort of Negligence and Elements of Tort
Analysis
The facts of the case study state that Zarine took Sara to a park where she got
engaged talking to Jack .Meanwhile, Sara starts to wander in the nearby road where
Jack noticed and rushed to the road to save Sara. Jack successfully saved Sara but met
with an accident with Bob, who was driving on the road and injured himself.
Meanwhile, Laura, driving behind Bob, slides her car and hit a tree. Behind the tree,
there was Leonard, who developed a paranoid out of that situation. Sherry also
suffered mental trauma, as she was also present at the park.
The Tort of Negligence is based upon the English Laws. It is regarded as a
civil wrong that is experienced by a person by the fault of another person who failed
to take proper care of that situation leading to inevitable loss or damage that could
have been easily avoided with proper care. The law relating to negligence has evolved
in the past decades as it also deals with certain situations between two or more parties
without the existence of any contract between the parties. The following focuses on
the elements of Tort and discusses about the tort of negligence thorough a case study
briefly.,
The purpose and the aim of this are to show the light upon the components of
the tort of negligence and using the Spandeck test to determine the liability of the
victim in the given case study., Negligence, as a tort, requires a duty more than just the
care. It includes that the defendant owes a legal duty to care, breach of the legal duty,
and irreversible damage or loss caused due to that breach of the legal duty
(Amirthalingam, 2007). A case qualifying these conditions is termed under the act of
negligence. To avoid such conditions and absurdness, this rule came into use and
hence became the primary and effective rule to determine the negligent tort. This
single test was proficient at establishing a duty of care between the parties regardless

3The Tort of Negligence and Elements of Tort
of the degree of damage or loss caused due to the party for such a negligent act. This
gallant stride by the Court of Appeal of Singapore will make the understanding of the
complex area of law at ease and the application of it smooth. The paramount phase of
the test controls the duty of care requires and states that there should exist suitable
legal proximity amongst the claimant and the defendant…, . “The Court stated certain
conditions to prove the proximity and two criteria needs to be fulfilled, (McBride, &
Bagshaw, 2018)., The second phase of the test consist of policy considerations
establish whether the chief duty that had been recognized by law must be considered
void.
Applying this rule in the above case study the Act of Zarine and John is
considered negligent, as it possessed all the criteria required to fulfill to be negligent
following the Spandeck test. It was her duty of care to look after Sara. So, in this case,
she will be liable to Laura, Bob and John for the accident. The accident could have
been easily ignored if she took proper care of the situation. Whereas John wanted to
avoid such miss happenings resulting in the accident on his own. If he had controlled
his momentum, the accidents could have been easily avoided as Bob was driving at a
very minimum speed. Although Sherry’s mental trauma will not be considered as a
negligent tort by John and Zarine, as there was no casual proximity between them
(Owen, 2018).,
Zarine would be causing negligent tort for not taking proper care of Sara,
whereas John was injured by accident caused due to his fault resulting in the damage
caused to Laura and Leonard who never foreseen this situation. In order to determine
the negligence for psychiatry harm, there is a requirement to institute a duty of care
arising from a specific circumstances. The Spandeck rule may be applied here. It is
necessary to consider any negative consequences to whom it is owed.

4The Tort of Negligence and Elements of Tort
The following case study will fall under the negligence of tort, as the act of
Zarine was negligent which resulted in such damage or loss caused to the others. The
Act due to Laura, Bob, John, Leonard and Sherry could have avoided if Zarine took
proper care. Her single Act resulted in such a drastic situation. Zarine’s primary
purpose was to take care of Sara that she failed, as she knew Sara could meet with an
accident (Purshouse, 2015)., Nevertheless, other acts can never be foreseen as it
started with Bob but Bob was driving carefully.
In the following case example of, “Ngiam Kong Seng v CitiCab Pte Ltd
[2007] SGHC 3,” the findings of the tort of negligence were done based on the
Spandeck test (Howe, Khang, & Chai, 2019). In this case, liability was the only issue
that was determined by the court. This test was first held in the case of “Spandeck
Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency”, in which the
Court of Appeal in this case provided a single test to be used to establish tort
negligence regardless of the kind of loss suffered. It also states the conditions whether
it be pure economic loss or otherwise (Charlesworth et al).,
Applying this rule in the above case study the Act of Zarine and John is
considered negligent, as it possessed all the criteria required to fulfill to be negligent
following the Spandeck test. Although Sherry’s mental trauma will not be considered
as a negligent tort by John and Zarine, as there was no casual proximity between these
people (Owen, 2018)., Zarine would be causing negligent tort for not taking proper
care of Sara, whereas John was injured by accident caused due to his own fault.
Resulting in the damage caused to Laura and Leonard who never foreseen this
situation. In order to determine the negligence for psychiatry harm, there is a
requirement to institute a duty of care ascending from a specific condition. The

5The Tort of Negligence and Elements of Tort
Spandeck rule may be applied here. It is necessary to consider any negative
consequences to whom it is owed.
In a similar case of psychiatry harm of, “Alcock v Chief Constable of South
Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310”. It stands as an example, for the negligence, psychiatric
damage, post-event trauma that is witnessed incidentally between principal and minor
victims (Brooman, 2015). This leading case determines the liability for nervous
tremor. The facts of this case states a mutual action which was carried up by Alcock
and several other claimants in contradiction of the South Yorkshire Police. The other
applicants had folks who were stuck in the, Hillsborough Stadium disaster, in which
many followers of Liverpool FC died in a mishap but later it was seen that the due to
the carelessness of the police by allowing too many enthusiasts to the crowd in one
part of the stadium. The tragedy was later broadcasted in the television where the
family members saw their relatives die in the disaster (Case Note: 2014). All the
claimantss demanded charges for the psychiatric harm they underwent because of
such mishap. The decision was upon the House of Lords to determine the prime
persistence was of instituting liability in negligence who suffered from such mental
trauma (Thornton, 2020)., They were to see the liability of tort-based upon the mental
trauma received by the claimants. The appellants in the following case were ,Alcock,
Melling, Catherine Marea Jones, Alexandra Penk, Brian, Brenda, Stephen jones and
others.,
, Applying this rule in the above case study the situation will be like though
applying the Spandeck test Zarine would be liable for negligent tort but this will not
fall under the category of psychiatric harm. As in this case, there was no actual harm
caused directly to Sherry. Sherry underwent the mental trauma assuming what might
have happened to her if she was present there at the place of Sara and what would

6The Tort of Negligence and Elements of Tort
have happened if he were present in the place of accident (Witting & Yihan, 2015).
This test suffices after the happenings. Without any cause of action of wrongdoing, it
would not fall in the category of mental trauma or agony. In the leading case, the
claimants have seen there family members live on television which established direct
contact between the person facing the damage. The primary condition was fulfilled
though the secondary result was not seen. However, in the given example of a case
study neither primary nor secondary link exists between Zarine and Sherry. She
imagined the whole situation that has not occurred yet but based on that punishment
could not be imposed. Negligence would because only by applying the link.
Therefore, in this case, the mental trauma Sherry was facing was her fault and no
other person was responsible for the damage caused to her due to the assumptions.
There even if it suffices the condition of negligent tort but it will not fall under the
category of mental trauma or mental agony.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Zarine will be liable for the negligent tort as the situation itself
occurred due to negligence. On the other hand, the scenarios arising out of mental
shock were not foreseen or could not have been foreseen as the trauma caused to
Leonard and Sherry was unpredictable and there was no proximity in that case.
Hence, Zarine will not be liable for such mental trauma caused by Sherry and
Leonard.

7The Tort of Negligence and Elements of Tort
Reference
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310
Amirthalingam, K. (2007). Lord Atkin and the Philosopher's Stone.
Anderson, J. (2014). Professional Negligence, Solicitors: Case Law, 2014. SSRN
Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2412042
Asif, J. (2014). Professional negligence and liability reports 2014. .
Brooman, S. D. (2015). Domestic violence, judicial austerity and the duty of care:
Michael and others (FC)(Appellants) v The Chief constable of South Wales
Police and another (Respondents). Journal of Professional Negligence, 31(3).
Case Note:, S. (2014). Case Note: Singapore. Digital Evidence And Electronic
Signature Law Review, 9(0).
Charlesworth, J., Percy, R., Walton, C., & Cooper, R. Charlesworth & Percy on
negligence.
Howe, J. S. T., Khang, L. H., & Chai, I. E. (2019). Legal Area Classification: A
Comparative Study of Text Classifiers on Singapore Supreme Court
Judgments. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.06470.
McBride, N., & Bagshaw, R. (2018). Tort Law.: Pearson Education Limited.
Ngiam Kong Seng v CitiCab Pte Ltd [2007] SGHC 3
Owen, J. (2018). Tearing up the patchwork quilt: an examination of how, why and
when liability for psychiatric injury in the tort of negligence is
imposed. Plymouth Law & Criminal Justice Review, 10.

8The Tort of Negligence and Elements of Tort
Purshouse, C. (2015). Liability for lost autonomy in negligence: Undermining the
coherence of tort law.
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency[2007]
SLR 100
Thornton, R. (2020). Malice/Gross Negligence. Retrieved 4 February 2020.
Witting, C., & Yihan, G. (2015). Evolving Personal Torts. SAcLJ, 27, 607.