Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.

0204negligence

2.808 visualizaciones

Publicado el

  • Inicia sesión para ver los comentarios

0204negligence

  1. 1. Negligence
  2. 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. 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. 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
  5. 5. Discuss • Activity 1 page 265 Activity 1, page 265
  6. 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
  7. 7. Discuss • Activity 2 page 266 Activity 2, page 266
  8. 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
  9. 9. Discuss • Activity 3 pg 267 Activity 3, pg 267
  10. 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 
  11. 11. Discuss • Activity 4 pg 269 Activity 4, pg 269
  12. 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
  13. 13. Discuss • Activity 5 pg 271 Activity 5, pg 271
  14. 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. 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. 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. 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. 18. 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 
  19. 19. 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

×