02/16/22 1

1. Definisi
2.Elemen-elemen kecuaian
– tugas utk berhati-hati
3. Rumusan

02/16/22 2
  Definisi biasa  Definisi undang-
undang
Kelakuan yg tidak Perlanggaran tugas
berhati-hati utk berhati-hati yg
ditetapkan oleh
undang-undang yg
mengakibatkan
kerosakan kpd
seseorang lain

02/16/22 3
Alderson B : Negligence is the omission to
do something which a reasonable man,
guided upon those considerations which
ordinarily regulate the conduct of human
affairs, would do, or doing something
which a prudent and reasonable man
would not do.

02/16/22 4
Lord Wright : Negligence means more than
heedless or conduct …it properly connotes
the complex concept of duty, breach and
damage thereby suffered by the person to
whom the duty is owed.

02/16/22 5
1. Tugas utk berhati-hati;
2. Perlanggaran tugas utk berhati-hati; dan
3. Kerosakan / kecederaan

02/16/22 6
Perkembangan tugas utk berhati-hati:
1.Ujian di peringkat awal – ujian kedekatan
2.Prinsip ‘jiran’
3.Ujian ‘dua peringkat’
4.Ujian ‘inkremental’ / incremental

02/16/22 7
 HEAVEN V. PENDER

 Brett MR: Whenever one person is by

circumstances placed in such a position with
regard to another that every one of ordinary
sense who did think who at once recognise that
if he did not use ordinary care and skill in his
conduct with regard to those circumstances he
would cause danger of injury to the person of
property of the other, a duty arises to use
ordinary care and skill to avoid such danger.
02/16/22 8
 LE LIEVRE V. GOULD

Lord Esher MR: One man may owe a duty to

another, even though there is no contract
between them. If one man is near to another or
is near to the property of another, a duty lies
upon him not to do that which may cause a
personal injury to that other, or may injure his
property.

02/16/22 9
  DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON
 P’s friend purchased ginger beer in opaque
bottle. P poured ginger beer int glass, drank it.
P then poured remainder into glass, saw
remains of a decomposed snail. P claimed she
suffered illness as a result.
 P sued manufacturer of ginger beer in
negligence as she had no contract with either
retailer or manufacturer.
 HOL: D owed a duty of care towards P.
02/16/22 10
 DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON

 Lord Atkin: You must take reasonable care to

avoid acts or omissions which you could
reasonably foresee would be likely to injure
your neighbour. Who then in law is my
neighbour? The answers seems to be persons
who are closely and directly affected by my act
that I ought to have them in contemplation as
being so affected when I am directing my mind
to the acts or omissions which are called in
question.
02/16/22 11
  Prinsip jiran melibatkan ujian yang
objektif yang mana mahkamah akan
bertanyakan soalan hypothetical:
 Adakah seorang yang munasabah dalam
keadaan yang sama seperti defenden
memperlihat/menjangkakan bahawa
perbuatannya itu akan menjejaskan
plaintif?
 Jika YA, plaintif adalah jiran
defendan.Jika TIDAK, plaintif bukan
jiran defendan.
02/16/22 12
 Ujian penentuan tugas adalah
berdasarkan kepada
pralihat/jangkaan yang munasabah
tentang kecederaan kepada orang
lain atau harta benda orang lain.

02/16/22 13
 Kepentingan keputusan kes Donoghue v.
Stevenson.
 Menghapuskan hubungan ‘priviti’ –
tidak semestinya wujud hubungan
kontraktual bagi mewujudkan tugas utk
berhati-hati;
 Titik permulaan tuntutan bagi kecacatan
produk

02/16/22 14
  Prinsip kejiranan adalah terhad kepada kes2 di
mana kecuaian D telah menyebakan berlaku
kerosakan fizikal kepada P.
 Namun kemudiannya kecuaian berasaskan
prinsip jiran Lord Atkin ini, telah diperluaskan
yang mana kerosakan bukan sahaja terhad
kepada kerosakan fizikal tetapi juga termasuk
kerugian ekonomi:

02/16/22 15
  A melabur dlm Syarikat B berdasarkan nasihat
yg diberikan oleh C. Beberapa bulan kemudian
Syarikat B bankrup lalu A mengalami kerugian
sebanyak RM100,000.00.
 A mengambil tindakan terhadap C kerana
mendakwa C telah memberi pernyataan cuai
yg mana bersandarkan pernyataan tersebut, A
membuat tindakan yang mengakibatkan dia
mengalam kerugian.(kerugian ekonomi)

02/16/22 16
  Kes ini melibatkan kerugian ekonomi akaibat negligent
misstatement.
 HOL bersetuju D mempunyai tugas berhati-hati utk
tidak menyebabkan P mengalami kerugian ekonomi.
 HOL berpendapat ujian kejiranan berpotensi akan
menyebabkan liability yg sangat luas. Maka
memutuskan bagi menentukan tugas berhati-hati,
mesti wujud “special relationship” di antara D dan P
 Mahkamah tidak memberikan definisi “special
relationship” namun Lord Devlin menyatakan ianya
“equivalent to contract”.

02/16/22 17
 HOME OFFICE V. DORSET
YACHT CO. LTD
 Lord Reid: Donoghue v. Stevenson may be
regarded as milestone, and the well-known
passage in Lord Atkin’s speech should, I think,
be regarded as a statement of principle…It will
require qualification in new circumstances. But
I think the time has come when we can and
should say that it ought to apply unless there is
some justification of valid explanation for its
exclusion

02/16/22 18
 ANNS V. MERTON LONDON
BOROUGH COUNCIL
 Lord Wilberforce: …the position has now been
reached that in order to establish that a duty of
care arises in a particular situation, it is not
necessary to find a precedent with similar facts,
ie.bring the facts of that situation within those
previous situations in which a duty of care has
been held to exist. Rather the question has to be
approached in two stages.

02/16/22 19
 Samb.
First one has to ask whether, as between
the alleged wrongdoer and the person who
has suffered damage there is a sufficient
r/ship or proximity or neighbourhood
such that, in the reasonable contemplation
of the former, carelessness on his part may
be likely to cause damage to the later, in
which case prima facie duty of care arises.

02/16/22 20
 Samb.
Secondly, if the first question is answered
affirmatively, it is necessary to consider
whether there are any considerations
which ought to negative, or to reduce or
limit the scope of the duty or the class of
person to whom it is owed or the
damages to which a breach of it may give
rise.

02/16/22 21
  1.Did the parties satisfy the neighbor test; was the P
someone to whom D could reasonably be expected to
foresee risks of harm?
 If yes;- a prima facie duty of care arose.
 2.Whether there were any policy considerations that
meant it would not be desirable to allow a duty of care in
this situation.
 If no policy considerations that argued against
establishing a duty of care;- then a duty of care could be
imposed.


02/16/22 22
  P’s house badly built, defective foundations caused
cracking in the walls.
 Defect- not damage.
 Traditionally if only defect, claims may be made only
for any personal injury caused by the defect, OR any
damage to other property, but NOT for the defect itself.
 If there is no personal injury or damage to property
due to the defect, P has no claims against D.
 This is because defect is considered economic loss –
reduced value of the object.

02/16/22 23
  HOL:
 Cracks in the walls could be viewed as damage
to property rather than economic loss.
 P can be compensated.

02/16/22 24
  Ringkasnya:
 D mempunyai tugas berhati-hati untuk
memastikan bahwa UU adalah dipatuhi
semasa pembinaan tapak bangunan.
 Disebabkan tugas ini tidak dipenuhi oleh
D(akibatnya bangunan mempunyai
defect/kecacatan) D bertanggungan dan perlu
membayar gantirugi kpd PL.(walaupun P tidak
mengalami apa2 personal injury atau
kerosakan/damage.)
02/16/22 25
 Bersetuju:
Mcloughlin v. O’Brien
Junior Books Ltd. V. Vietchi Co.Ltd
Tidak bersetuju:
Governors of The Peabody Donation Fund
Leigh and Sullivan Ltd v. Aliakmon
Sutherland Shire Council v. Heyman
Curran v. Nothern Island
Yuen Kun Yeu v. AG of Hong Kong
Murphy v. Brentwood
02/16/22 26
  Development of the law:
 After Hedley Byrne:- P could recover for EL
caused by statements.
 After Anns dan Junior Books:-It was possible to
claim for economic loss caused by negligent act.

 Ujian kes Anns dikritik selepas kes Junior Books.

 Anns telah di”overruled” oleh kes Murphy v
Brentwood.
02/16/22 27
  Ujian kes Anns dikritik selepas kes Junior
Books.
 Anns telah di”overruled” oleh kes Murphy v
Brentwood.

02/16/22 28
 Kategori kecuaian boleh ditambah
sekiranya ia adil dan munasabah
untuk berbuat demikian

02/16/22 29
  BRENNAN J: It is preferable, in my view, that
the law should develop novel categories of
negligence incrementally and by analogy with
established categories of negligence rather than
by a massive extension of a prima facie duty of
care restrained only by indefinable
‘considerations which ought to negative, or
reduce or limit the scope of duty ..’(2nd stage
Anns)

02/16/22 30
  Brennan J. rejected broad principle approach in Anns.
 Adopted an incremental approach which would
develop by looking at the particular category that the
case fell into &
 “ developing specific rules within that category.
 Eg. Nervous shock case attract different rules from
starightforward physical damage cases
 Nervous shock case creates different problems,
therefore cannot be approached based on reasonable
foreseeability only.

02/16/22 31
 Tiga elemen untuk mewujudkan tugas untuk
berhati-hati:

1. Pralihat kerosakan – kerosakan yang berlaku

itu mestilah sesuatu yang boleh dipralihat:
2. Hubungan kejiranan; dan
3. Sama ada adil dan munasabah untuk
mewujudkan tugas

02/16/22 32
 CAPARO INDUSTRIES PLC V.
DICKMAN

MURPHY V. BRENTWOOD

02/16/22 33
  CAPARO INDUSTRIES PLC V. DICKMAN
 Kes ini melibatkan liabiliti auditors bagi
negligent misstatement.
 P adalah pemegang syer dalam sebuah sykt..
Setelah akaun bagi 1984 yg telah diaudit oleh D
diterbitkan, P telah membeli syer tambahan yg
akhirnya menyebabkan berlaku “take-over
bid” terhadap sykt berkenaan yang mana ianya
berjaya.

02/16/22 34
  P membida bagi mengambil alih syarikat
kerana bergantung kpd laporan 1984 yg
menunjukkan sykt untung 1.3 million GBP.
 Sykt sebenarnya rugi 465,000 GBP.
 Held: Membenarkan rayuan D.
 D tidak mempunyai tugas berhati-hati
terhadap P. D sebagai auditors hanya
mempunyai tugas terhadap pemegang syer,
bukan kpd pihak yg hendak membeli sykt
tersebut.
02/16/22 35
  Basic test for duty of care.
 Usually applied cases involving physical injury
and/or damage to property

02/16/22 36
  The test requires the courts to ask 3 questions:
 1.Was the damage reasonably forseeable?
 2.Was there a relationship of proximity
between D and P?
 3.Is it just, fair and reasonable to impose a duty
in this situation?
 * The 3 factors very often overlap.
 Lord Oilver; they are essentially the ‘facets of
the same thing’

02/16/22 37
  Lord Oilver; they are essentially the ‘facets of
the same thing’:

 The more foreseeable the harm is, the more

likely it is that proximity will be found between
the parties, and the closer the proximity and
the more foreseeable the harm, the more likely
it is that imposing a duty will be considered
just and reasonable.

02/16/22 38
  P hamil akibat kegagalan prosedur vasectomy
pasangannya.
 P menuntut gantirugi bagi kos saran anak
tersebut.
 TuntutanP ditolak atas alasan ‘ it was not just
and reasonable to award compensation for the
birth of a healthy child- something that most
people would consider a blessing’

02/16/22 39
  Maka, terdapat kes-kes di mana walaupun
elemen2 pralihat dan proximity telah dipenuhi,
mahkamah percaya bahawa terdapat polisi
awam yg mewajarkan tuntutan tersebut
ditolak.

02/16/22 40
  ROBINSON V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WEST
YORKSHIRE
 [2018] UKSC 4

 RUSHBOND PLC V THE JS PARTNERSHIP

LLP
 [2020] EWHC 1982

02/16/22 41
  Menurut mahkamah adalah tidak adil dan
munasabah utk mewujudkan tugas utk
berhati-hati ke atas defendan kerana pihak
ketiga yg merosakkan harta plaintif bukan di
bawah kawalan atau seliaan defendan.
 Please read this case.

02/16/22 42
  Ujian inkremental masih lagi kekal digunakan
sehingga kini. Buktinya dlm kes-kes ini
mahkamah telah menggunakan ujian
inkremental dlm menentukan kewujudan tugas
untuk berhati-hati.

02/16/22 43
  Dlm menentukan elemen adil dan munasabah utk
mewujudkan tugas utk berhati-hati, dua perkara perlu
dipertimbangkan:
 1. mahkamah perlu menentukan sama ada kes ini
merupakan satu kes yg mana tugas utk berhati-hati
telah diwujudkan sebelum ini?; dan
 2. jika belum ada, mahkamah boleh mewujudkan tugas
utk berhati-hati dlm situasi kes yg sedang dibicarakan
secara inkremental dgn syarat ia adil dan munasabah
untuk berbuat demikian.

02/16/22 44
  Jika kerosakan yang berlaku itu sesuatu yang
boleh dipralihat, maka defendan mempunyai
tugas untuk berhati-hati terhadap plaintif.

02/16/22 45
  In order for a duty to exist, it must be
foreseeable that damage or injury would be
caused to the particular defendant in the case,
OR
 To a class of people to which he or she belongs,
rather than just to people in general.
 In short, duty is owed to a person or category
of persons NOT the human race in general.

02/16/22 46
 BOURHILL V. YOUNG
[1943] AC 92

PALSGRAF V. LONG ISLAND

RAILWAY CO.
284 NY 339

02/16/22 47
  BOURHILL V. YOUNG
 P, a distant bystander, mengalami kejutan
saraf/nervous shock apabila melihat kesan
kemalangan akibat dari kecuaian D.
 Held: Walaupun D mempunyai tugas berhati-
hati kepada pengguna2 jalanraya yg lain, D
tidak mempunyai tugas berhati2 terhadap P
kerana kehadiran P tidak boleh dipralihat.

02/16/22 48
  Pekerja keretapi secara cuai menolak
penumpang yg sedang hendak menaiki
keretapi tsbt.
 Inimenyebabkan parcel yg dibawa penumpang
terjatuh. Parcel mengandungi mercun, lalu
meletup.
 P yg berada beberapa kaki dari empat kejadian
terkena kesan letupan dan kakinya tercedera
 P mengambil tindakan terhadap D

02/16/22 49
  Held:
 It could not be reasonably foreseen that
pushing the passenger would injure someone
standing several feet away.
 It was reasonably foreseeable that the
passenger might be injured, but that did not in
itself create a duty to other people.

02/16/22 50
 SATHU V. HAWTHORNDEN

SIVAKUMARAN A/L SELVARAJ & 2

OTHERS V. YU PAN & ANOR

02/16/22 51
  SATHU V. HAWTHORNDEN
 Lembu P mati setelah masuk ke estet D dan
memakan rumput di situ yg telah disembur
racun.
 Mahkamah: Telah mengaplikasi prinsip
Donoghue.
 Untuk menjadikan D bertanggungan, D
mestilah dibuktikan menyedari bahawa lembu
P dan bukan mana2 lembu lain, adalah
berkemungkinan untuk masuk ke estetnya.
02/16/22 52
  Keterangan membuktikan bahawa D tidak
dapat pralihat secara munasabah bahawa
lembu P akan masuk ke dlm estetnya.

02/16/22 53
  Kes2 Sathu dan Sivakumaran menunjukkan
bahawa dlm menentukan tugas berhati-hati
mahkamah Malaysia mengaplikasikan prinsip
kejiranan secara literal.
 Mahkamah tidak membincangkan samada ia
perlu mengambil kira adakah ianya adil dan
munasabah untuk mengenakan tugas berhati-
hati ke atas defendan.

02/16/22 54
  Bandingkan kes-kes tersebut dengan kes2 ini:

02/16/22 55
  Mahkamah telah merujuk pada kes Donoghue
v. Stevenson, Peabody Donation Fund Yuen
Kun Yeu v. AG of Hong Kong & Caparo
Industries v. Dickman dan memutuskan
bahawa 3 elemen utk membuktikan
kewujudan tugas:
1. Foreseeability of damage;
2. Proximity of r/ship; and
3. Whether in all circumstances if it fair, just and
reasonable to impose a duty of care
02/16/22 56
 Suriyadi J: The preceptof ‘duty of care’
would very much depend on the
foreseeability of damages, the r/ship of
proximity or neighbourhood and
whether it was fair and reasonable to
impose such a duty.

02/16/22 57
  P undertook and paid for a package of services
known as “Lavender Lipo Management
Treatment” from London Weight Management
Sdn Bhd (“LWM”), a company specialising in
“slimming services”.

02/16/22 58
  P was given a box of coffee and oat drinks which were
to be consumed and a diet meal which she was
required to follow strictly. Upon consumption of the first
coffee sachet, P claimed that, amongst others, she felt
sick and that her tongue became “stiff and swollen” and
she had difficulty swallowing/chewing and was unable
to talk properly. P alleged that she reacted badly to the
various treatment that she underwent and her skin
broke out in ulcers, sores and redness. She had,
amongst other effects, palpitations, weakness and
constant pain.

02/16/22 59
  P sued LWM in the High Court for suffering
loss and damage caused by the negligence of
LWM.

The claim was dismissed after a full trial

 P appealed. COA:

02/16/22 60
  COA:
 Considering that one of the treatments undertaken by
Thene involved the ingestion of supplements or other
concoctions, the COA found that such an intrusive
treatment must, in its view, carry a corresponding duty
of care to ensure that whatever it provided or
recommended is in fact safe and suitable for the
customer.
 LWM is under a duty to warn or alert its customers,
regardless of the manner in which the slimming
package is drawn up, of any adverse effects that its
treatments may bring.

02/16/22 61
  We, on our part, are in no doubt of the
existence of such a duty of care owed by the
respondent to the appellant. The relationship of
the parties, though contractual to begin with, is
nevertheless such that it may be readily
concluded that there is proximity of
relationship between them for this Court to
consider it fair, just and reasonable that the law
imposes a duty of care on the respondent for
the benefit of the appellant.

02/16/22 62
  COA found that P had successfully proved the existence of
a duty of care owed by LWM, a breach of that duty and
damages as a result of the breach. Negligence was
established.

 The Court of Appeal also found that clause E in the

slimming consultation card which precluded any party,
including P, from enforcing his/her rights under the
contract, is void under section 29 of the Contracts Act 1950.
 .


02/16/22 63
 RUMUSAN

02/16/22 64