7052643
Description
Mind Map by Angel Nicole , updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by Angel Nicole
almost 10 years ago
|
|
Negligence
(Duty of Care)
(Acts &
Omissions)
- Claim must prove three
things:
- a) D owed C a duty of care b) D
was in breach of duty c)
Breach caused damage to C
- a) D owed C a duty of care b) D
was in breach of duty c)
Breach caused damage to C
- Two Stage Test for
establishing liability in
negligence
- Stage 1: Relationship of proximity between
C and D (D ought to foresee harm) Stage 2:
Any reason would limit duty? (if no, duty
should exist)
- Stage 1: Relationship of proximity between
C and D (D ought to foresee harm) Stage 2:
Any reason would limit duty? (if no, duty
should exist)
- Duty of Case
- a) Foreseeability
b)Proximity c) Fair, Just,
Reasonable
- Foreseeablility: could a
'reasonable man or person' in
d's position had reasonably
foreseen C might be injured in
particular circumstance.
- Proximity: must be 'proximity of
relationship' bewteen C and D,
foreseeability alone is too wide
Physical Proximity: relevant in
deciding if duty exists. The
actual relationship between
parties, closer relationship,
more likely there is a duty.
- Fair, Just, Reasonable: even if
there is foreseeability and
proximity , court may decide it is
not 'fair, just and reasonable' to
impose a duty
- Foreseeablility: could a
'reasonable man or person' in
d's position had reasonably
foreseen C might be injured in
particular circumstance.
- a) Foreseeability
b)Proximity c) Fair, Just,
Reasonable
- Acts and Omissions
- a) a positive act (misfeasance)
b) an omission (non-feasance)
- Not liable for omissions, in
Donoghue v Stevenson,
omissions was meant in the
course of conduct
- Distinction between
acts and omissions can
produce strange results
- Argument imposing
liability for omissions:
a) imposes a burden
on people b)the
problem of causation
- Distinction between
acts and omissions can
produce strange results
- Not liable for omissions, in
Donoghue v Stevenson,
omissions was meant in the
course of conduct
- a) a positive act (misfeasance)
b) an omission (non-feasance)
- Voluntary Conduct
- Someone Voluntarily
assumes a duty
- In 19th century, duty to act was seen as being
connected to contract not tort. There may be a
duty outside of contract in certain circumstances
i.e. a doctor stops to help an injured person in
the streets, there is an assumed duty by starting
to help
- In 19th century, duty to act was seen as being
connected to contract not tort. There may be a
duty outside of contract in certain circumstances
i.e. a doctor stops to help an injured person in
the streets, there is an assumed duty by starting
to help
- Someone Voluntarily
assumes a duty
- Statutory Powers
- A public authority i.e. Government, local
may be given powers by an Act of
Parliament, what if the Government fails
to do the task or carries it out negligently
?
- Distinction must be
made between: a) a
duty to act b) a power
to act
- Could be argues that public authority
could not be liable in negligence, as
they did not have to act in the first
place
- Distinction must be
made between: a) a
duty to act b) a power
to act
- A public authority i.e. Government, local
may be given powers by an Act of
Parliament, what if the Government fails
to do the task or carries it out negligently
?
- Special
Relationships
- Liability for omissions, may be imposed
because of their status, may be imposed
where one person has a responsibility for
another. For example, doctor- patient.
- Liability for omissions, may be imposed
because of their status, may be imposed
where one person has a responsibility for
another. For example, doctor- patient.
- Third Party
- The general rule is that the law does not
impose liability for harm caused by
another third party.
- The general rule is that the law does not
impose liability for harm caused by
another third party.
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.