TORT

1. NEGLIGENCE
– DUTY OF CARE (2)

2.  To be able to identify who can be the plaintiff in a
claim on negligence
 To be able to differentiate between a positive action
and an omission
 To be able to identify situations where an omission is
actionable in negligence
LEARNING OUTCOMES
2

3.  Ahnaf Azmi, Norchaya Talib on Torts in Malaysia,
(Sweet & Maxwell Asia 2021), Chapter 6
 Wan Azlan Ahmad & Mohsin Hingun, Malaysian Tort
Law, (Sweet & Maxwell Asia 2019), Chapter 6
READING
3

4.  Positive action (misfeasance)
cf
Omission (nonfeasance)
 General Rule: No DOC to act for another.
 Smith v Littlewoods Organistion Ltd. [1987] 1 All ER 710
 Stovin v Wise [1996] 3 All ER 801
 The President of Majlis Perbandaran Tawau v Amiruddin bin
Rasake & 245 Ors (and Another Appeal) [2017] 3 MLJ 778, CA
OMISSIONS & DOC
4

5. Exceptions:
1. An existing DOC.
2. A special relationship:
 Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis [1955] AC549
Omissions & DOC (cont’)
5

6. 3. Control over a third party who causes the damage:
 Holgate v Lancashire Mental Hospitals Board [1937]
4 All ER 19
4. Control over both the plaintiff and third party who
causes the damage:
 Ellis v Home Office [1953] 2 All ER 149
Omissions & DOC (cont’)
6

7. 5. Control over land/property:
 Goldman v Hargrave [1967] 1 AC 645
 Parimala a/l Muthusamy & Ors v Projek Lebuhraya
Utara Selatan [1997] 4 AMR
6. Failure to perform an act that has been promised
(without a contract):
 Semble, Wood v Thurston [1951] 5 WLUK 66.
 Horsley v MacLaren [1970] 1 Llyod’s Rep 257
Omissions & DOC (cont’)
7