The Tort of Negligence

Gary Lam 2009067958

Kelly Koh 2009536868
 Duty of Care

• Special relationship between a defendant and

a plaintiff
• Breach  could be found to be at fault
 Negligence
Negligence arises when a duty of care based on
the neighbor principle is breached. It is a tort
in its own right. It is one of the basic principles
established by the case of Donoghue versus
Stevenson, 1932.
1 Duty

2 Breach

3 Causation

4 Damages
 Duty
• It must be established that the defendant
owed a duty to the plaintiff
• There are various conditions that can help us
establish whether the defendant owed a duty
of care to the plaintiff.

• Foreseeability
 Nova Mink v Trans-Canada Airlines 
[1951]
• A low flying airplane flew over a commercial
mink farm
• The animals were frightened
• Result: Mink Cannibalism

• But this situation was not foreseeable, and the

airline was held to owe no duty of care to the
mink farm.
Breach
•“Reasonable man”
•Breach:
• Did something that
a reasonable man
should not do
• Didn’t do
something that a
reasonable man
should do
What if…
Inexperience

Lack of What Slow reaction

intelligence
if…

Personal
characteristics
• Legal standards generally take no account of
the personal characteristics of the Defendant

• Exceptions:
– Children:
• Mullin v Richards – 1998 – CA
– Professionals:
• Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee 1957
 Causation
1. Did the Defendant owe a duty of care?

• YES

2. Was the Defendant in breach of his duty?

• YES

3. Did the Plaintiff suffer harm as a result of the breach?

If YES  causation
 “BUT FOR” test
• “If harm to the claimant would not have
occurred “but for” the Defendant’s negligence
then that negligence is a cause of the harm

• …if the loss would occur in any event, the

defendant’s conduct is not a cause”
 Damages
• Economic loss
• Other methods possible
1

2
Negligence
case
3

4
Donoghue versus Stevenson
1932