Law of Negligence

The Law of Negligence: Duty, Violation, and the ‘Reasonable Man’ 1. Introduction: The Development of Care Negligence is one of the most significant areas of Tort Law. Unlike criminal law, which aims to punish offenders, or contract law, which enforces agreements, the law of negligence focuses on compensating individuals who suffer harm due to the lack of reasonable care by another. The foundation of modern negligence law was laid in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, where a decomposed snail was found in a bottle of ginger beer. Lord Atkin introduced the ‘Neighbour Principle’, stating that a person must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which they can reasonably foresee would injure their neighbour. 2. The Four Aspects of a Negligence Claim To succeed in a claim for negligence, the plaintiff must prove four essential elements on the balance of probabilities. Failure to establish any one of these elements results in the claim failing. I. Duty of Care A duty of care exists where the law recognises a relationship requiring the defendant to act with reasonable care towards the plaintiff. For example, drivers owe a duty to other road users and doctors owe a duty to their patients. The Caparo Test: Established in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990), courts consider: (1) whether the harm was reasonably foreseeable, (2) whether there was sufficient proximity between the parties, and (3) whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty. II. Breach of Duty (Standard of Care) A breach occurs when the defendant fails to meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the same circumstances. Personal hardships or intentions of the defendant are irrelevant. Professional Standard: Professionals are judged according to the standard of a reasonably competent professional in that field, as established in the Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee test. Risk vs Cost: Courts balance the likelihood of harm against the cost and practicality of preventing it. Where serious harm is likely and preventive measures are simple, failure to act constitutes a breach. III. Causation Factual Causation (But-For Test): The court considers whether the injury would have occurred ‘but for’ the defendant’s breach. If the harm would have occurred regardless, liability does not arise. Legal Causation (Remoteness): As established in The Wagon Mound (No. 1) [1961], a defendant is only liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable and not too remote. IV. Damage Negligence alone is insufficient to bring a claim. The plaintiff must prove actual damage such as physical injury, property damage, recognised psychiatric illness, or financial loss. 3. Defences to Negligence Even where all elements of negligence are established, the defendant may raise defences that reduce or eliminate liability. 1 Contributory Negligence: Where the plaintiff contributed to their own harm, damages are reduced proportionately. 2 Volenti Non Fit Injuria: Where the plaintiff knowingly and willingly accepted the risk of harm. 3 Ex Turpi Causa: No claim arises if the injury resulted from the plaintiff’s serious illegal conduct. 4. Specialised Doctrines Res Ipsa Loquitur: In situations where the accident would not normally occur without negligence and the defendant had control over the situation, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove absence of fault. Vicarious Liability: Employers are held liable for negligent acts of employees committed in the course and scope of employment.