1565249
Tort of Negligence
- Tort is used to protect those who do not have a contract
- 1. Defendant owes plaintiff a duty of care
- "Neighbourhood
Principle" in Donohuge
v Stevenson (1932)
- Acts that can
reasonably foresee as
likely to injure those
who are so closely and
affected by my act
- Acts that can
reasonably foresee as
likely to injure those
who are so closely and
affected by my act
- Ann's 2-Stage Test in Anns
v Merton London Borough
Council (1978)
- 1. Acts that can reasonably
foresee as likely to injure
those who are so closely
and affected by my act
- 2. Are there policy
considerations that would
negate, reduce, limit the
scope of duty or damages
- 1. Acts that can reasonably
foresee as likely to injure
those who are so closely
and affected by my act
- Caparo's 3-Stage Test in
Caparo Industries Ltd v
Dickman (1990)
- 1. Foreseeability of damage
(most impt to give rise to
duty of care)
- 2. Relationship of proximity
- 3. Is it just, fair and
reasonable to impose duty:
Indeterminate liability for
indeteminate time for an
indeterminate class
- 1. Foreseeability of damage
(most impt to give rise to
duty of care)
- Singapore's Position (2007)
- The more foreseeable the harm,
the more likely the courts will find
"proximity", the more likely court
considerations, and the call for
justice and reasonableness will call
for imposition of duty of care
- Spandeck Engineering (S)
Pte Ltd vs Defence
Science & Technology
Agency (2007)
- To determine if officer owed contractor a duty of care
- Preliminary requirement: Factual forseeability:
- 1. Proximity: Physical, circumstantial,
causal proximity and voluntary
assumption of responsibility such that
it is REASONABLE TO FRESEE my act
or omission will harm
- Prima facie duty of care
- Prima facie duty of care
- 2. Are there considerations or
policies that will negative or limit
the duty? Policy involve balancing
the moral claims and social
welfare goals
- 1 and 2 should be
applied
INCREMENTALLY,
referring to decided
cases in analogous
situations,
balancing between
fairness and
possible policy
considerations
against
indeterminate
liability
- 1. Proximity: Physical, circumstantial,
causal proximity and voluntary
assumption of responsibility such that
it is REASONABLE TO FRESEE my act
or omission will harm
- Preliminary requirement: Factual forseeability:
- To determine if officer owed contractor a duty of care
- The more foreseeable the harm,
the more likely the courts will find
"proximity", the more likely court
considerations, and the call for
justice and reasonableness will call
for imposition of duty of care
- "Neighbourhood
Principle" in Donohuge
v Stevenson (1932)
- 2. Defendant breached his duty of care
- Reasonable Standard of Care
- 1. Level of skill
- Go Dante Yap v
Bank Austria
Creditanstalt AG
(2011)
- Go Dante Yap v
Bank Austria
Creditanstalt AG
(2011)
- 2.. Likelihood of harm
- Low: Bolton v Stone (1951)
- High: Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951)
- Low: Bolton v Stone (1951)
- 3. Seriousness of Harm
- 4. Cost of Avoiding
- Wagon Mound (No 2)
(1967): High cost, low
risk: examine if cost
justifies the marginal
increase in safety
- High cost and high risk: Necessary
- Low cost and low risk: Maybe
- Wagon Mound (No 2)
(1967): High cost, low
risk: examine if cost
justifies the marginal
increase in safety
- 1. Level of skill
- Reasonable Standard of Care
- 3. Plaintiff suffered loss and damage from the breach
- "But for"test: Causal link between negligence and damage
- Would plaintiff have suffered
from harm if defendant had
not been negligent?
- Barnett v Chelsea
& Kensington
Hospital (1969)
- Yeo Peng Hock
Henry v Pai Lily
(2001)
- Barnett v Chelsea
& Kensington
Hospital (1969)
- Would plaintiff have suffered
from harm if defendant had
not been negligent?
- OR Legal Causation
- Are the losses too
remote? Use the
reasonable foreseeability
test
- Are the losses too
remote? Use the
reasonable foreseeability
test
- Egg-shell Skull Rule: TV Media v De Cruz Andrea Heidi (2004)
- "But for"test: Causal link between negligence and damage
- Damage caused by Negligent Act/Statement
- Physical Damage/ Injury
- Consequential Economic Loss
- RECOVERABLE, DOES
NOT LEAD TO
INDETERMINATE
LIABILITY + REASONABLE FORSEEABILITY
- Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
- Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
- RECOVERABLE, DOES
NOT LEAD TO
INDETERMINATE
LIABILITY + REASONABLE FORSEEABILITY
- Consequential Economic Loss
- PURE Economic Loss
- Caused by
Negligent
Misstatement
- Usually duty of care
owed if there is a "special
relationship"
- Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964)
- 1. Depends on the skill and expertise of the maker of
statement 2. Whether maker of S knows the other
person will rely on it 3. Whether the maker of S
voluntarily assumes responsibility
- 1. Depends on the skill and expertise of the maker of
statement 2. Whether maker of S knows the other
person will rely on it 3. Whether the maker of S
voluntarily assumes responsibility
- Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990)
- 1. Forseeability of harm 2. Proximity of
R/s between parties 3. Whether it is
fair, just and reasonable to impose duty
of care
- 1. Forseeability of harm 2. Proximity of
R/s between parties 3. Whether it is
fair, just and reasonable to impose duty
of care
- Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964)
- Usually duty of care
owed if there is a "special
relationship"
- Caused by Negligent Act/Omission
- RSP Architects Planners &
Engineers v Ocean Front Pte
Ltd
- Prima Facie if 1. Forseeable 2. Proxmity
- 3. Whether am I
imposing liability for
indeterminate
amount of time, class,
amount
- 3. Whether am I
imposing liability for
indeterminate
amount of time, class,
amount
- Prima Facie if 1. Forseeable 2. Proxmity
- RSP Architects Planners &
Engineers v Ocean Front Pte
Ltd
- Caused by
Negligent
Misstatement
- Nervous Shock
- McLoughlin v Brian (1983)
- The closer the
tie, greater
claim for
consideration
- The closer the
tie, greater
claim for
consideration
- Ngiam Kong Seng v
Lim Chiew Hock
(2008)
- 1. Closeness or r/s including
circumstantial proximity 2.
Proximity of plaintiff to
accident in time and space
(Physical Prox) 3. Causal
Proximity
- 1. Closeness or r/s including
circumstantial proximity 2.
Proximity of plaintiff to
accident in time and space
(Physical Prox) 3. Causal
Proximity
- McLoughlin v Brian (1983)
- Physical Damage/ Injury
- Res ipsa loquitur
- If D was in control,
and accident can only
arise out of
negligence of D = D
has to prove he was
NOT negligent
- Scott v London & St Katherine Docks Co (1865)
- Scott v London & St Katherine Docks Co (1865)
- If D was in control,
and accident can only
arise out of
negligence of D = D
has to prove he was
NOT negligent
- Defence
- Complete: Volenti non fit injuria
- FULL and VOLUNTARY consent
with FULL KNOWLEGE of RISKS of
NEGLIGENCE
- FULL and VOLUNTARY consent
with FULL KNOWLEGE of RISKS of
NEGLIGENCE
- Partial: S 3(1) of the Contributory Negligence & Personal Injuries Act
- Exemption of liability clause:
Incorporation, construction and UCTA
- Complete: Volenti non fit injuria
Media attachments
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.