The Tort of Negligence Flow Chart – For Law Students

Summary:

This informative chart summarizes the applicable case law related to the Tort of Negligence. The Tort of Negligence is a legal concept that deals with situations where one party causes harm or injury to another due to their failure to take reasonable care. To understand this area of law, it is important to have a clear understanding of the relevant case law. This helpful chart provides a concise summary of the key cases that have shaped the principles of the Tort of Negligence.

Excerpt:

The Tort of Negligence

DEFINITION – 1
The breach of a legal duty to take care, resulting in damage to the claimant which was not desired by the defendant: L.B. Curzon, Dictionary of Law.

DEFINITION – 2
“Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations that ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.” Per Alderson B., Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856)

1. DUTY OF CARE

A duty of care was originally established by applying Lord Atkin’s “Neighbour” Test from: Donoghue v Stevenson (1932). The modern three-stage test was laid down by the HL in: Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990). The court must now consider:

(A) Whether the consequences of the defendant’s act were reasonably foreseeable. For example, damage or harm was held to be reasonably foreseeable in: Kent v Griffiths (2000); and Jolley v Sutton LBC (2000). But not in: Bourhill v Young (1943); or Topp v London Country Bus Ltd (1993)

(B) Whether there is a relationship of proximity between the parties, ie a legal relationship or physical closeness. For example, there was proximity in: Home Office v Dorset Yacht Club (1970). But not in: Caparo v Dickman (1990)

(C) Whether in all the circumstances it would be fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty. It was held not to be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on the police in: Hill v C.C. of W. Yorkshire (1988). However, a duty was imposed on the fire brigade in: Capital v Hampshire County Council (1997).