2. Concept of negligence Pg 264
Concept of negligence – Pg 264
• Negligence caused by a failure to take
caused by a failure to take
reasonable care when there is a duty to do so
• Negligence caused by carelessness
(Unintentional)
(U i i l)
– The wrong is unintentional but negligent
– The defendant is held to be at fault for the
negligent of a wrong
3. To succeed
To succeed action for negligence
for negligence
Must prove 3 things
Must prove 3 things
• Duty of care
– Th d f d t
The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care
d th l i t d t f
• Breach of duty
– There was a breach of that duty by the defendant
• Consequential injury or damage
– In consequence, the claimant suffered injury or
damage or financial loss Pg 264
4. Duty of care Tests /Pg 265
Duty of care – Tests /Pg 265
• Reasonably foreseeable
y
– Would you reasonably be able to foresee the damage
caused by your negligence ?
• Proximity
– Are you sufficiently related in proximity to the other
party?
• Fair, just and reasonable
– Is it fair, just and reasonable for law to impose a duty
on you?
• Public policy
– Any public policy says that you have no duty of care
yp p y y y y
6. Restricting the duty of care
Restricting the duty of care
• You are not liable for the acts of 3rd party
You are not liable for the acts of 3 party
unless they were under your control
– Vicarious liability by employer for the acts of his
Vicarious liability by employer for the acts of his
employee done in the course of the employment
– Arbitrators, judges, lawyers in the judicial process
are immune from civil action
are immune from civil action
Pg 265
8. Liability for economic loss
Liability for economic loss
• The most common example is where a person
The most common example is where a person
who has suffered physical damage
– Make a claim for loss of business profit while
Make a claim for loss of business profit while
damage is put right
• Other situations
Other situations
– Ross v Caunters 1980
– M ih d v Industrial Tank Specialities Ltd 1986
Murihead I d t i l T k S i liti Ltd 1986
Pg 267
10. Liability for nervous shock
Liability for nervous shock
• The claimant must prove a definite and
The claimant must prove a definite and
identifiable psychiatric illness
• Cases
– McLoughlin v O’Brien 1982
– Alcock & others v Chief Constable of South
Yorkshire Police 1991
– Vernon v Bosley 1997
– McFarlane v E E Caledonia Ltd 1994
Pg 268
12. Standard of care
Standard of care
• The 2nd element that must be proven by a claimant in
an action for negligence is that there was a breach of
the duty of care by the defendant
• Do what a reasonable man would do and abstain from
doing what a reasonable man would not do
• Cases
– Nettleship v Weston 1971
v Weston
– Pg 269 & 270
14. Loss carried by the breach
Loss carried by the breach
• To decide for a claim the court considers:
To decide for a claim, the court considers:
– The breach of duty gave rise to the harm (Fact)
– The harm was not too remote from the breach
The harm was not too remote from the breach
(Law)
• A person would only be compensated if he has
suffered actual loss, injury, damage or harm as
suffered actual loss injury damage or harm as
a consequential of another’s action Pg 272
15. No claim
No claim
• Claimant followed a course of action
Claimant followed a course of action
regardless of the acts of the defedant
• A 3rd part is the actual cause of harm
A 3 part is the actual cause of harm
• A complicated series of events takes place
such that no one act was the cause of all the
h h h f ll h
harm
• An intervening act by the claimant or a 3rd
party breaks the chain of causation
16. Causation
• “But for” test
But for test
• Loss of a chance
• Multiple causes
li l
• Cases
– Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington 1969
– Hotson v East Bershire Health Authority 1987
– Wisher v Essex AHA 1988
17. Remote of damage Pg 273
Remote of damage ‐Pg 273
• Having decided whether the harm arose from
Having decided whether the harm arose from
a breach of duty, the court will finally look at
whether the harm which occurred was
whether the harm which occurred was
reasonably foreseeable
– Cases
• The Wagon Mound 1961
• Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963
Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963
• Folley v London Borough of Sutton 2000
Pg 228
18.
19. Assignment 2 Claim 2
Assignment 2 ‐ Claim 2
• Tim met an accident when he was driving a car
– Tim did not follow instruction of Khoa
– Tim was 18
– Tim was a learner driver under supervision of Khoa
p
• A shop front was damaged
– The car crashed into shop front
• Tracy suffered nervous shock
Tracy suffered nervous shock
– Because she saw Tom almost hit by the accident
• Khoa injured in the accident
– Kh did t
Khoa did not wear safety belt
f t b lt
• Khoa got brain damage
– Caused by allergic reaction followed by the injection in hospital
20.
21. Assignment Claim 3
Assignment ‐ Claim 3
• Loot carried out repair work
Loot carried out repair work
• Swish Curtain suffered loss of sales because of
Loot s repair work
Loot’s repair work
