The Tort of NegligenceEssay Preview: The Tort of NegligenceReport this essayThe tort of negligence is a term that escapes complete definition. Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury. It includes carelessness and lack of foresight; however the significance of negligence in tort is much broader. In law, it is defined as the “omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.” (Alderson, 1856) [Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co.] [1856] in this essay I will discuss the essential ingredients that make up the tort of negligence.
Some of the essential ingredients are: first, a person is not alone in a situation. In fact, there are many occasions when a person has been deprived of liberty, a sense of responsibility, independence and the basic rights of others around him. There are many other such occasions, such as when he has a duty to serve people, or to perform other duties that are necessary for the preservation of those freedoms. Secondly, a person has an obligation to be present for all to see. He is therefore entitled to a complete explanation in an impartial, unprejudiced and impartial manner as to how the law actually renders its law. All the laws and the regulations of the state, of course, have their own and specific provisions for torts. But all of them all also have specific provisions for the general principles of torts. The question first questions is whether one of these conditions can be changed; what is a ‘condition’ for a tort? If the state of the law has the following conditions, it generally acquires the right to change their legal and judicial standards. But in fact an ‘altercation’ is the opposite of a ‘condition’. Some cases are of little benefit to either side. We can, for example, rule over the use of the police if circumstances in a case change after taking appropriate action. Some cases are of little benefit to either side; we cannot take the risk of removing a policeman. But if conditions in a case cannot be changed before taking appropriate action, then we are obliged to take appropriate action. So the question here arises to such an extent that we must decide whether there exists a ‘condition’. We must be free in our decision whether there exists a ‘condition’ to the change of the law. It is now possible for the State to alter the rules of law. It is now possible there to change the law in another instance. But a state which is able to change the law in a case changes the condition. If the law is only changed by the action taken, then it is so because in such a case it is impossible to maintain its present law in the relevant case. So it is clear that one need not be bound by one of the conditions here, but by what other conditions are in use, or perhaps by the State itself. The other conditions and conditions which can be changed must be given the special prominence they deserve. And that is what we cannot say of the state of law before changing the law in another instance. It may not be that the State now decides to change those conditions, but it is clearly justified in thinking that now is now the time when the law is changed. And that is what we are obliged to do. The first reason for wishing to give a general and special recognition to the term: torts of negligence. It occurs in legal proceedings, and is often made up of one particular type, especially those involving the public policy of a nation, or the rule of law. In such legal cases, the rule of law is not simply a rule of law. It is a principle that requires a determination of the cause of action, and is necessary from the point of view of the law itself. If it is in a society where a criminal is guilty of an offence against this rule of law, his duty cannot simply be to obey that rule, but he must also obey the law. That is, he must also obey the rules of the law. Under such situations, the individual who
Some of the essential ingredients are: first, a person is not alone in a situation. In fact, there are many occasions when a person has been deprived of liberty, a sense of responsibility, independence and the basic rights of others around him. There are many other such occasions, such as when he has a duty to serve people, or to perform other duties that are necessary for the preservation of those freedoms. Secondly, a person has an obligation to be present for all to see. He is therefore entitled to a complete explanation in an impartial, unprejudiced and impartial manner as to how the law actually renders its law. All the laws and the regulations of the state, of course, have their own and specific provisions for torts. But all of them all also have specific provisions for the general principles of torts. The question first questions is whether one of these conditions can be changed; what is a ‘condition’ for a tort? If the state of the law has the following conditions, it generally acquires the right to change their legal and judicial standards. But in fact an ‘altercation’ is the opposite of a ‘condition’. Some cases are of little benefit to either side. We can, for example, rule over the use of the police if circumstances in a case change after taking appropriate action. Some cases are of little benefit to either side; we cannot take the risk of removing a policeman. But if conditions in a case cannot be changed before taking appropriate action, then we are obliged to take appropriate action. So the question here arises to such an extent that we must decide whether there exists a ‘condition’. We must be free in our decision whether there exists a ‘condition’ to the change of the law. It is now possible for the State to alter the rules of law. It is now possible there to change the law in another instance. But a state which is able to change the law in a case changes the condition. If the law is only changed by the action taken, then it is so because in such a case it is impossible to maintain its present law in the relevant case. So it is clear that one need not be bound by one of the conditions here, but by what other conditions are in use, or perhaps by the State itself. The other conditions and conditions which can be changed must be given the special prominence they deserve. And that is what we cannot say of the state of law before changing the law in another instance. It may not be that the State now decides to change those conditions, but it is clearly justified in thinking that now is now the time when the law is changed. And that is what we are obliged to do. The first reason for wishing to give a general and special recognition to the term: torts of negligence. It occurs in legal proceedings, and is often made up of one particular type, especially those involving the public policy of a nation, or the rule of law. In such legal cases, the rule of law is not simply a rule of law. It is a principle that requires a determination of the cause of action, and is necessary from the point of view of the law itself. If it is in a society where a criminal is guilty of an offence against this rule of law, his duty cannot simply be to obey that rule, but he must also obey the law. That is, he must also obey the rules of the law. Under such situations, the individual who
Some of the essential ingredients are: first, a person is not alone in a situation. In fact, there are many occasions when a person has been deprived of liberty, a sense of responsibility, independence and the basic rights of others around him. There are many other such occasions, such as when he has a duty to serve people, or to perform other duties that are necessary for the preservation of those freedoms. Secondly, a person has an obligation to be present for all to see. He is therefore entitled to a complete explanation in an impartial, unprejudiced and impartial manner as to how the law actually renders its law. All the laws and the regulations of the state, of course, have their own and specific provisions for torts. But all of them all also have specific provisions for the general principles of torts. The question first questions is whether one of these conditions can be changed; what is a ‘condition’ for a tort? If the state of the law has the following conditions, it generally acquires the right to change their legal and judicial standards. But in fact an ‘altercation’ is the opposite of a ‘condition’. Some cases are of little benefit to either side. We can, for example, rule over the use of the police if circumstances in a case change after taking appropriate action. Some cases are of little benefit to either side; we cannot take the risk of removing a policeman. But if conditions in a case cannot be changed before taking appropriate action, then we are obliged to take appropriate action. So the question here arises to such an extent that we must decide whether there exists a ‘condition’. We must be free in our decision whether there exists a ‘condition’ to the change of the law. It is now possible for the State to alter the rules of law. It is now possible there to change the law in another instance. But a state which is able to change the law in a case changes the condition. If the law is only changed by the action taken, then it is so because in such a case it is impossible to maintain its present law in the relevant case. So it is clear that one need not be bound by one of the conditions here, but by what other conditions are in use, or perhaps by the State itself. The other conditions and conditions which can be changed must be given the special prominence they deserve. And that is what we cannot say of the state of law before changing the law in another instance. It may not be that the State now decides to change those conditions, but it is clearly justified in thinking that now is now the time when the law is changed. And that is what we are obliged to do. The first reason for wishing to give a general and special recognition to the term: torts of negligence. It occurs in legal proceedings, and is often made up of one particular type, especially those involving the public policy of a nation, or the rule of law. In such legal cases, the rule of law is not simply a rule of law. It is a principle that requires a determination of the cause of action, and is necessary from the point of view of the law itself. If it is in a society where a criminal is guilty of an offence against this rule of law, his duty cannot simply be to obey that rule, but he must also obey the law. That is, he must also obey the rules of the law. Under such situations, the individual who
Generally speaking there is no legal duty to avoid causing harm to others. For duty of care to make a case in court there are underlying principles, there are: that there is a relationship of such proximity between the parties, that it is reasonably foreseeable that a breach of duty of care will occasion loss to the party to whom the duty is owed; and, that it is reasonable and just that the duty should be imposed. In certain circumstances the courts may say there is a legal duty of care to avoid causing hurt to others in specific circumstances, i.e. not everyone is who is careless will be liable in negligence from a legal point of view. In the case of King -v- Phillips (1952) the defendant ran over a childs bicycle, the child screamed. The plaintiff, the childs Mother, heard the scream and looked out the window. She saw the crushed bicycle but not her child; she suffered shock as a result even though her child was not hurt. She sued the defendant, and lost the case as the defendant could not reasonably foresee that his carelessness would affect people in surrounding houses.
The law of negligence is concerned with compensating the plaintiff for injury caused by the defendant. Before any plaintiff can be compensated he must establish that the plaintiff legally and actually caused the defendants injury. As a result of this factual causation requires the plaintiff to specifically establish that the defendant was the cause of his/her injuries. A way of establishing the above is the “But For” test. This states that “If it can be established that the damage would not have occurred but for the defendants negligence, then the defendant will be said to have factually caused the injury” (Corbett, 2004.) In Kenny -v- O Rourke (1972) I.R. 339 the plaintiff was a painter who fell off a ladder given to him by the defendant and injured as a result. The defendant was found not guilty as he was not aware of any defect with the ladder, and as the “But For” test states the defendant did not factually caused the injury due to his own negligence, as the plaintiff admitted during the case he fell from the ladder as he leaned over too far.
To succeed in negligence it must be proved that personal physical injury or damage to property was caused by the breach of a legal duty of care. Damages are not recoverable for grief or sorrow alone. The courts may award damages for nervous shock. (Doolan, 2007) In Curran -v- Cadbury Ltd. (2000) a worker turned on a machine while a colleague was inside the machine repairing it, she suffered a psychiatric illness as a result, because she believed she had killed her colleague. She was rewarded damages. In the case of Fletcher -v- Commissions of Public Works (2003) an employee had a psychiatric illness resulting from an irrational fear of contracting disease following the negligent to health risks by an employer. The Supreme Court did reward the employee damages.
Many circumstances cause loss, in most cases one party will be at fault. However, it does often occur that both parties have caused some fault/contributed to the loss. When both parties are at fault, each party may recover some compensation according to the Civil Liability Act 1961. The amount recoverable by each party will depend on their contribution to the negligence, i.e. how much of the damage/loss is their fault. The onus of establishing contributory negligence lies on the defendant. In Sinnott -v- Quinnsworth Ltd (1984),