1. 1 Introduction to the Law of Tort Introduction to the Law of Tort Negligence Negligence and the Duty of Care

2. 2 Content 1. Law of Tort i.Definition. ii.Purpose. iii.Importance and Scope of Negligence. 2. Negligence i.Criteria Overview. ii.Duty of Care.

3. 3 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.

4. 4 2. Purpose of the law of tort 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.

5. 5 NEGLIGENCE Claimant must satisfy the following criteria: i.Duty of Care ii.Breach of Duty i.Resultant Damage.

6. 6 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

7. 7 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.

8. 8 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)?

9. 9 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]

10. 10 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)

11. 11 “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].