Hi :)

Chapter 7

TORT LAW
By Ms Noor Hattin
Hi, students!
How is everyone
doing?
 Topics to cover
A 1 General Negligence

A 2 Elements of Negligence

Duty of care
Breach of a duty of care
Causation
Remoteness of damage
 What is Tort Law?
A body of law which covers a wrongful act
of a person which causes injury, suffering,
unfair loss or harm to another person.

Strict
Intentional Tort Unintentional Tort
Liability Tort
Negligence
 Tortfeasor action
who did the wrongful

A person who commits the tort.

Victim
A person who got injured due to
the fault of the tortfeasor.
Definition

that cause
unintentional damage to another person
A careless ofa
act person

W
Negligence Tort
The breach of a legal duty to
take reasonable care which do want the person to get hurt

results in damage, undesired by

the defendant to the claimant.

Unintentional
 Importance

Negligence Tort involves harm by carelessness

and not intentional harm.

Purposes:
To protects individual against different
types of harm:
Personal injury;
Damage to property; like accident (victim damage (need paid
car

Economic loss.suffered by victim (Hospital bill)

To prevent tortfeasor from repeating the
violation in future.
Elements of 1 Duty of care

Negligence
Tort
2 Breach of duty of care

3 Remoteness of damage

4 Causation
1.DUTY
puty
meaning
OF CARE careless
a
of person to not be in their daily activity

duty/responsibility same meaning

A concept of obligation that is

L

essentially impose by the law upon

its citizens to ensure that everyone
exercises their civic duty not to be
careless in their daily activities.
How is this duty of care is
determined?
The duty of care is determined by an objective standard.

When evaluating a person’s conduct, tort law asks -

would a reasonable person of ordinary prudence in the
defendant’s position act as the defendant did?

Generally, a person owes a “duty of care” to those around him or her,

i.e. duty to act reasonably.
 1
Duty as a road user 2
If you drive a car,
Duty as a
you have the duty to manufacturer
obey the rules of the Manufacturers owes
road. a duty of care to
make a product 3
safely for use. Duty as a cook
Would a reasonable
cook pour lethal
drugs into his food
or not?
 a person closly and
directly affected
by your action

Neighbour Test
W

The neighbour test for establishing the

duty of care can be broken down into 2
requirements:
Harm thatcan
be predict foresee
1. Reasonable foresight of harm <

2. A relationship of proximity
meaning mustbe
victim directly affected by the action done

by tortfeasor
 have
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
foresight type manufacturer have duty of care

Fact:
A friend of the plaintiff had purchased a bottle of ginger beer at a cafe.
The ginger beer bottles were opaque and the claimant was unable to see its
contents.
When the plaintiff’s friend refilled the glass, along with the ginger beer
came the decomposed remains of a snail.
The claimant suffered shock and subsequently became ill.
She sued the manufacturer in negligence as the bottles should be carefully
inspected before they were filled with the drinks.

Held:
The court held that the defendants, being the manufacturers of the ginger
beer, owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.
This duty was to take reasonable care to ensure that the bottle did not
contain any substance which was likely to cause injury to anyone who
purchases it in due course.
 the of
fail to perform duty care

2.BREACH OF DUTY
OF CARE
“The violation of legal or moral
obligation; failure to act as the
law obligates one to act.”

Once the existence of duty of care

has been identified, it is a
simple matter to determine whether
the defendant’s actions met this
standard of care.
 panditif defendent

Bourhill v Young (1943)

fulfill the Neighbour text
Not

Conclu
Fact:
A motorcyclist was going too fast, crashed into a car and was killed. the
Mrs Bourhill who was 8 months’ pregnant, was about 50 yards away accident
involve
directly
in
not

She heard the accident but did not see it.

Afterwards, she saw blood on the road and suffered shock. Her baby was
stillborn as result.

Held:
The court held that the cyclist did not owe her the duty of care, as she
could not have reasonably foreseen that she could be affected by his
negligent driving and she was not sufficiently proximate enough to the
damage.
↳Are you suffer form of
injury?injury
V
is foreseeable type,
if question ask &
know can use

3.REMOTENESS
OF I DAMAGE ~ loss
-persona I
-damages
injury
&

property

Relates to the requirement

that the damage was not too
remote or must be of a
foreseeable type.
 In order to bring an action for negligence, there had to be a physical
change in property which rendered the property less valuable.

The victim must show that he/she suffered actual injury, i.e. personal
injury or damage in property.

1 2
Personal injury Damage in property
Broken arm, bruises, Burned down house
broken bones or dented car.
 Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)

Fact:
The claimant (8 year old) and another boy were playing on a road.
Near the road was a pothole with red paraffin warning lamps place there.
The boys mucked around and the claimant accidentally knocked the lamp into
the hole, causing an explosion.
The claimant suffered severe burns.
foreseeable type

Held:
The defendant was held liable for negligence of the workmen. The defendant
was liable as the damage was not too remote as it was foreseeable that the
boys might suffer a burn from the lamp.
The defendant could have escaped liability if the injury was of a different
kind than the foreseeable type.
 cause

4.CAUSATION
is the
damage suffer of the victim directly cause
by the claimant

There must be a strong link

between the breach and the
eventual damage.

Defendant’s breach of duty

actually caused the damage
suffered by the claimant.
 Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington
Hospital Management Committee (1968)

Fact:
The plaintiffs were the family of the victim, who had gone to the
defendant’s hospital but was negligently sent home untreated and
died of arsenic poisoning five hours later.
The medical evidence suggested that the victim would have probably
died, even if the proper treatment had been given promptly.

Held:
The court accepted that the defendants owed the deceased a duty of
care and that they had breached that duty by failing to examine him.
However, the breach did not cause his death as there was evidence
that even if he had been examined, it was too late for any treatment
to save him.
 NOVUS ACTUS INTERVINIENS

The intervening act is known as novus actus

interveniens which means new intervening act.

A novus actus breaks the causal chain between the

initial wrongdoer's action and the liability that
is imputed to him or her as a result thereof.
3 intervening acts:

1 3

Acts of nature Claimant/victim

Earthquake, storm, 2 Victim's own
landslide negligence

Third party
Burglar, doctor,
claimant's
acquittances etc.
no, I
intervening act

Baker v Willoughby (1970)

for the
defendantliable injury but not new
injury
Fact:
The claimant injured his leg in a car accident caused by the
defendant’s negligence. defedent liable
The defendant was made to compensate the claimant for his injuries.
However, the claimant had to have the injured leg amputated when he
was shot during an armed robbery.
The defendant claimed that he should not longer have to compensate
the claimant for an injury to a leg that no longer existed.

Held:
The court decided that it was fair for the claimant to receive
compensation.
What can
plaintiff Direct loss

recover? value of the loss of certain bodily

functions (eg: loss of leg).

Economic loss
out-of-pocket costs resulting from the injury
(eg: medical bills, lost wages, reduced
earning capacity, property damage).

Pain and suffering

value of the mental anguish plaintiff has
suffered and will continue to suffer.
 END OF CHAPTER 7 - TORT LAW

THANK YOU FOR

LISTENING!
Do you have any questions?