Introduction to the Law of Tort
Negligence
and the Duty of Care
1
Content
1. Law of Tort
i. Definition.
ii. Purpose.
iii. Importance and Scope of Negligence.
2. Negligence
i. Criteria Overview.
ii. Duty of Care.
2
TORTS
 A wrongful act;
 Against an individual or corporate body
and his or her or its property;
 Which gives rise to a civil action;
 Usually for damages.
 Does not require existence of a contract
for there to be liability.
3
Purpose of the law of tort
2.
i.
To provide compensation for the
injured person.
ii. Generally liability is based on
fault.
iii. Motive of defendant in committing
the tort generally irrelevant.
4
NEGLIGENCE
Claimant must satisfy the following criteria:
i. Duty of Care
ii. Breach of Duty
i. Resultant Damage.
5
DUTY OF CARE
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932].
Neighbour Test:
i. Duty to take reasonable care
ii. To avoid acts or omissions
iii. Which you could reasonably foresee
iv. May injure your neighbour
6
WHO IS YOUR NEIGHBOUR?
Proximity Test
i. Any person so closely and directly
affected by your act;
ii. That you ought reasonably to have
them in contemplation as being so
affected;
iii. When you are directing your minds
to the acts or omissions in question.
7
HISTORY OF THE TEST
Anns v Merton LBC [1978].
Two tier test:
i. Sufficient relationship of
proximity or neighbourhood
between claimant and
defendant?
ii. If so, any factors which should
limit scope of duty (i.e. public
policy reasons)?
8
HISTORY (2)
Junior Brooks v Veitchi [1983]
Peabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay
Parkinson [1984]
Leigh and Sillivan v Aliakmon Shipping [1986]
Yuen Kun Yeu v AG of Hong Kong [1987]
Murphy v Brentwood DC [1990]
9
CURRENT APPROACH
Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990].
i. Was harm caused reasonably
foreseeable?
ii. Was there a relationship of proximity
between defendant and claimant?
iii. Is it just and fair to impose a duty of
care in all the circumstances?
See also John Munroe (Acrylics) v London
Fire Brigade (1997)
10
“The trend of authorities has been to
discourage the assumption that anyone
who suffers loss is prima facie entitled
to compensation from a
person….whose act or omission can be
said to have caused it. The default
position is that he is not.”
Lord Hoffman in Stovin v Wise [1996].
11