Tort and negligence

Tort law “the set of rules which provide remedies for damage caused by the tortfeasor to the victim” Damage = an injury –= harm (uncountable) injury to the person, to property, to reputation, to financial interests Tortfeasor = person (natural or artificial) who committed a tort Concerned with establishing liability for wrongs – legal responsibility – not concerned with moral culpability Wrongful = tortious (tor shus) aims to return the claimant to the position he was in before the tortfeasor committed his wrongful act = redressing the wrong so tort law is concerned with compensation for wrongs,, rather than punishment Because of that, as we saw last week, the remedies which are granted are generally damages and injunction Finally these are Private wrongs – the claimant brings the claim (=files suit) and the onus (=the burden pf proof) is on the claimant, who must adduce evidence (introduce, bring forward) to prove his case to what standars (on a balance of probabilities) which means – more than 50%

Tort law “the set of rules which provide remedies for damage caused by the tortfeasor to the victim” concerned with establishing liability for wrongs Damage = an injury –= harm (uncountable) injury to the person, to property, to reputation, to financial interests Tortfeasor = person (natural or artificial) who committed a tort Concerned with establishing liability for wrongs – legal responsibility – not concerned with moral culpability Wrongful = tortious (tor shus) aims to return the claimant to the position he was in before the tortfeasor committed his wrongful act = redressing the wrong so tort law is concerned with compensation for wrongs,, rather than punishment Because of that, as we saw last week, the remedies which are granted are generally damages and injunction Finally these are Private wrongs – the claimant brings the claim (=files suit) and the onus (=the burden pf proof) is on the claimant, who must adduce evidence (introduce, bring forward) to prove his case to what standars (on a balance of probabilities) which means – more than 50%

Tort law “the set of rules which provide remedies for damage caused by the tortfeasor to the victim” concerned with establishing liability for wrongs aims to return the claimant to the position he was in before the tortfeasor committed his wrongful act Damage = an injury –= harm (uncountable) injury to the person, to property, to reputation, to financial interests Tortfeasor = person (natural or artificial) who committed a tort Concerned with establishing liability for wrongs – legal responsibility – not concerned with moral culpability Wrongful = tortious (tor shus) aims to return the claimant to the position he was in before the tortfeasor committed his wrongful act = redressing the wrong so tort law is concerned with compensation for wrongs,, rather than punishment Because of that, as we saw last week, the remedies which are granted are generally damages and injunction Finally these are Private wrongs – the claimant brings the claim (=files suit) and the onus (=the burden pf proof) is on the claimant, who must adduce evidence (introduce, bring forward) to prove his case to what standars (on a balance of probabilities) which means – more than 50%

Tort law “the set of rules which provide remedies for damage caused by the tortfeasor to the victim” concerned with establishing liability for wrongs aims to return the claimant to the position he was in before the tortfeasor committed his wrongful act the burden of proof is on the claimant Damage = an injury –= harm (uncountable) injury to the person, to property, to reputation, to financial interests Tortfeasor = person (natural or artificial) who committed a tort Concerned with establishing liability for wrongs – legal responsibility – not concerned with moral culpability Wrongful = tortious (tor shus) aims to return the claimant to the position he was in before the tortfeasor committed his wrongful act = redressing the wrong so tort law is concerned with compensation for wrongs,, rather than punishment Because of that, as we saw last week, the remedies which are granted are generally damages and injunction Finally these are Private wrongs – the claimant brings the claim (=files suit) and the onus (=the burden pf proof) is on the claimant, who must adduce evidence (introduce, bring forward) to prove his case to what standars (on a balance of probabilities) which means – more than 50%

Tort law In a contract case – who does a party have legal obligations to? A defendant in a contract action is generally limited in his liability to the other party ot the contract, and his legal obligations arise from the contractual agreement. In contrast tort law creates univ legal obligations – defined by law – owed by everybody to any one we could foresee would be likely to be affected by our actions. Derived from case law and from mandatory statutory provisions Four types of tort: Negligence Nuisance Defamation Trespass

Tort law Creates universal legal obligations In a contract case – who does a party have legal obligations to? A defendant in a contract action is generally limited in his liability to the other party ot the contract, and his legal obligations arise from the contractual agreement. In contrast tort law creates univ legal obligations – defined by law – owed by everybody to any one we could foresee would be likely to be affected by our actions. Derived from case law and from mandatory statutory provisions Four types of tort: Negligence Nuisance Defamation Trespass

Tort law Creates universal legal obligations Derived from case law and from mandatory statutory provisions In a contract case – who does a party have legal obligations to? A defendant in a contract action is generally limited in his liability to the other party ot the contract, and his legal obligations arise from the contractual agreement. In contrast tort law creates univ legal obligations – defined by law – owed by everybody to any one we could foresee would be likely to be affected by our actions. Derived from case law and from mandatory statutory provisions Four types of tort: Negligence Nuisance Defamation Trespass

Tort law Creates legal obligations Derived from case law and from mandatory statutory provisions Four types of tort: Negligence Nuisance Defamation Trespass In a contract case – who does a party have legal obligations to? A defendant in a contract action is generally limited in his liability to the other party ot the contract, and his legal obligations arise from the contractual agreement. In contrast tort law creates univ legal obligations – defined by law – owed by everybody to any one we could foresee would be likely to be affected by our actions. Derived from case law and from mandatory statutory provisions Four types of tort: Negligence Nuisance Defamation Trespass

Negligence Today and for teh enxt couple of weeks we are going to be looking at negligence – most complex and important of the torts. What kind of cases are brought using the law of negligence? Negligence cases include personal injury claims following accidents, medical negligence claims, or some consumer disputes.

Negligence To succeed in a negligence claim, a claimant must establish three elements. What are they? The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care The defendant breached the duty of care The claimant suffered an injury or damage to property as a result of the breach (= causation). If a claimant brings a claim against a defendnat, they must prove all three elements on a balance of probabilities So we are going to look at each element in detail

Negligence The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care To succeed in a negligence claim, a claimant must establish three elements. What are they? The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care The defendant breached the duty of care The claimant suffered an injury or damage to property as a result of the breach (= causation). If a claimant brings a claim against a defendnat, they must prove all three elements on a balance of probabilities So we are going to look at each element in detail

Negligence The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care The defendant breached the duty of care To succeed in a negligence claim, a claimant must establish three elements. What are they? The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care The defendant breached the duty of care The claimant suffered an injury or damage to property as a result of the breach (= causation). If a claimant brings a claim against a defendnat, they must prove all three elements on a balance of probabilities So we are going to look at each element in detail

Negligence The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care The defendant breached the duty of care The claimant suffered an injury or damage to property as a result of the breach (= causation). To succeed in a negligence claim, a claimant must establish three elements. What are they? The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care The defendant breached the duty of care The claimant suffered an injury or damage to property as a result of the breach (= causation). If a claimant brings a claim against a defendnat, they must prove all three elements on a balance of probabilities So we are going to look at each element in detail

1. Duty of care The first element is the DoC This was established in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) This is possibily the most important case in English cvil law, definitely the most famous – We are going to do a short listening, to give you a bit of background about it This is called the neighbour principle That’s the origin of negligence Over time the caselaw has developed Today the key case is Caparo and Dickman it was reasonably foreseeable (possible to predict) that harm would occur Link – neignbour principle It is fair, just and reasonable for a duty to be owed to the claimant by the defendant In some cases the Caparo test is not used because the courts or statutes have ruled that a DOC exists: A driver owes a doc to...... to other road users. A manufacturer ......to consumers An employer .....to his employees A solicitor ......to his clients An occupier of premises to .... visitors

1. Duty of care Concept established in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) The first element is the DoC This was established in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) This is possibily the most important case in English cvil law, definitely the most famous – We are going to do a short listening, to give you a bit of background about it This is called the neighbour principle That’s the origin of negligence Over time the caselaw has developed Today the key case is Caparo and Dickman it was reasonably foreseeable (possible to predict) that harm would occur Link – neignbour principle It is fair, just and reasonable for a duty to be owed to the claimant by the defendant In some cases the Caparo test is not used because the courts or statutes have ruled that a DOC exists: A driver owes a doc to...... to other road users. A manufacturer ......to consumers An employer .....to his employees A solicitor ......to his clients An occupier of premises to .... visitors

1. Duty of care Concept established in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) Following Caparo Industries v. Dickman (1990), a duty of care exists if: The first element is the DoC This was established in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) This is possibily the most important case in English cvil law, definitely the most famous – We are going to do a short listening, to give you a bit of background about it This is called the neighbour principle That’s the origin of negligence Over time the caselaw has developed Today the key case is Caparo and Dickman it was reasonably foreseeable (possible to predict) that harm would occur Link – neignbour principle It is fair, just and reasonable for a duty to be owed to the claimant by the defendant In some cases the Caparo test is not used because the courts or statutes have ruled that a DOC exists: A driver owes a doc to...... to other road users. A manufacturer ......to consumers An employer .....to his employees A solicitor ......to his clients An occupier of premises to .... visitors

1. Duty of care Concept established in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) Following Caparo Industries v. Dickman (1990), a duty of care exists if: the damage was reasonably forseeable The first element is the DoC This was established in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) This is possibily the most important case in English cvil law, definitely the most famous – We are going to do a short listening, to give you a bit of background about it This is called the neighbour principle That’s the origin of negligence Over time the caselaw has developed Today the key case is Caparo and Dickman it was reasonably foreseeable (possible to predict) that harm would occur Link – neignbour principle It is fair, just and reasonable for a duty to be owed to the claimant by the defendant In some cases the Caparo test is not used because the courts or statutes have ruled that a DOC exists: A driver owes a doc to...... to other road users. A manufacturer ......to consumers An employer .....to his employees A solicitor ......to his clients An occupier of premises to .... visitors

1. Duty of care Concept established in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) Following Caparo Industries v. Dickman (1990), a duty of care exists if: the damage was reasonably forseeable there was sufficient proximity between C and D The first element is the DoC This was established in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) This is possibily the most important case in English cvil law, definitely the most famous – We are going to do a short listening, to give you a bit of background about it This is called the neighbour principle That’s the origin of negligence Over time the caselaw has developed Today the key case is Caparo and Dickman it was reasonably foreseeable (possible to predict) that harm would occur Link – neignbour principle It is fair, just and reasonable for a duty to be owed to the claimant by the defendant In some cases the Caparo test is not used because the courts or statutes have ruled that a DOC exists: A driver owes a doc to...... to other road users. A manufacturer ......to consumers An employer .....to his employees A solicitor ......to his clients An occupier of premises to .... visitors

1. Duty of care Concept established in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) Following Caparo Industries v. Dickman (1990), a duty of care exists if: the damage was reasonably forseeable there was sufficient proximity between C and D it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care The first element is the DoC This was established in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) This is possibily the most important case in English cvil law, definitely the most famous – We are going to do a short listening, to give you a bit of background about it This is called the neighbour principle That’s the origin of negligence Over time the caselaw has developed Today the key case is Caparo and Dickman it was reasonably foreseeable (possible to predict) that harm would occur Link – neignbour principle It is fair, just and reasonable for a duty to be owed to the claimant by the defendant In some cases the Caparo test is not used because the courts or statutes have ruled that a DOC exists: A driver owes a doc to...... to other road users. A manufacturer ......to consumers An employer .....to his employees A solicitor ......to his clients An occupier of premises to .... visitors

2. Breach of the duty of care If a duty of care is established, the claimant must then prove that there has been a breach of the doc The defendant’s behaviour is compared to that of a reasonable man – he must meet the standard of behaviour expected of a reasonable man. The test considers two issues: Would a reasonable man have foreseen the risk? Based on what he knew or ought to have (should have =aurait du) known What steps (actions) would he have taken to prevent it? Children are held to a lower standard. Experts are held to a higher standard (of a “reasonable” expert). A defendant’s inexperience does not lower the standard. (a learner driver is held to the same standard as an experienced driver)

2. Breach of the duty of care The reasonable man test: If a duty of care is established, the claimant must then prove that there has been a breach of the doc The defendant’s behaviour is compared to that of a reasonable man – he must meet the standard of behaviour expected of a reasonable man. The test considers two issues: Would a reasonable man have foreseen the risk? Based on what he knew or ought to have (should have =aurait du) known What steps (actions) would he have taken to prevent it? Children are held to a lower standard. Experts are held to a higher standard (of a “reasonable” expert). A defendant’s inexperience does not lower the standard. (a learner driver is held to the same standard as an experienced driver)

2. Breach of the duty of care The reasonable man test: Would a reasonable man have foreseen the risk? If a duty of care is established, the claimant must then prove that there has been a breach of the doc The defendant’s behaviour is compared to that of a reasonable man – he must meet the standard of behaviour expected of a reasonable man. The test considers two issues: Would a reasonable man have foreseen the risk? Based on what he knew or ought to have (should have =aurait du) known What steps (actions) would he have taken to prevent it? Children are held to a lower standard. Experts are held to a higher standard (of a “reasonable” expert). A defendant’s inexperience does not lower the standard. (a learner driver is held to the same standard as an experienced driver)

2. Breach of the duty of care The reasonable man test: Would a reasonable man have foreseen the risk? What steps would he have taken to prevent it? If a duty of care is established, the claimant must then prove that there has been a breach of the doc The defendant’s behaviour is compared to that of a reasonable man – he must meet the standard of behaviour expected of a reasonable man. The test considers two issues: Would a reasonable man have foreseen the risk? Based on what he knew or ought to have (should have =aurait du) known What steps (actions) would he have taken to prevent it? Children are held to a lower standard. Experts are held to a higher standard (of a “reasonable” expert). A defendant’s inexperience does not lower the standard. (a learner driver is held to the same standard as an experienced driver)

2. Breach of the duty of care The reasonable man test: Would a reasonable man have foreseen the risk? Would he have taken steps to prevent it? Children are held to a lower standard. If a duty of care is established, the claimant must then prove that there has been a breach of the doc The defendant’s behaviour is compared to that of a reasonable man – he must meet the standard of behaviour expected of a reasonable man. The test considers two issues: Would a reasonable man have foreseen the risk? Based on what he knew or ought to have (should have =aurait du) known What steps (actions) would he have taken to prevent it? Children are held to a lower standard. Experts are held to a higher standard (of a “reasonable” expert). A defendant’s inexperience does not lower the standard. (a learner driver is held to the same standard as an experienced driver)

2. Breach of the duty of care The reasonable man test: Would a reasonable man have foreseen the risk? Would he have taken steps to prevent it? Children are held to a lower standard. Experts are held to a higher standard (of a “reasonable” expert). If a duty of care is established, the claimant must then prove that there has been a breach of the doc The defendant’s behaviour is compared to that of a reasonable man – he must meet the standard of behaviour expected of a reasonable man. The test considers two issues: Would a reasonable man have foreseen the risk? Based on what he knew or ought to have (should have =aurait du) known What steps (actions) would he have taken to prevent it? Children are held to a lower standard. Experts are held to a higher standard (of a “reasonable” expert). A defendant’s inexperience does not lower the standard. (a learner driver is held to the same standard as an experienced driver)

2. Breach of the duty of care The reasonable man test: Would a reasonable man have foreseen the risk? What steps would he have taken to prevent it? Children are held to a lower standard. Experts are held to a higher standard (of a “reasonable” expert). A defendant’s inexperience does not lower the standard. If a duty of care is established, the claimant must then prove that there has been a breach of the doc The defendant’s behaviour is compared to that of a reasonable man – he must meet the standard of behaviour expected of a reasonable man. The test considers two issues: Would a reasonable man have foreseen the risk? Based on what he knew or ought to have (should have =aurait du) known What steps (actions) would he have taken to prevent it? Children are held to a lower standard. Experts are held to a higher standard (of a “reasonable” expert). A defendant’s inexperience does not lower the standard. (a learner driver is held to the same standard as an experienced driver)

The court will take into account: When deciding whether there has been a breach, The court will take into account: the likelihood (probability) of damage occurring the gravity/seriousness of any potential damage the cost and practicability (faisabilité) of avoiding or minimising the risk Look at cases here we have three important cases, what is the rule which we can find from these cases? If the risk is unknown or very small, then there is no breach. (However, if the risk is reasonably foreseeable, then there may be a breach.)

The court will take into account: the likelihood of damage occurring When deciding whether there has been a breach, The court will take into account: the likelihood (probability) of damage occurring the gravity/seriousness of any potential damage the cost and practicability (faisabilité) of avoiding or minimising the risk Look at cases here we have three important cases, what is the rule which we can find from these cases? If the risk is unknown or very small, then there is no breach. (However, if the risk is reasonably foreseeable, then there may be a breach.)

The court will take into account: the likelihood of damage occurring the gravity/seriousness of any potential damage When deciding whether there has been a breach, The court will take into account: the likelihood (probability) of damage occurring the gravity/seriousness of any potential damage the cost and practicability (faisabilité) of avoiding or minimising the risk Look at cases here we have three important cases, what is the rule which we can find from these cases? If the risk is unknown or very small, then there is no breach. (However, if the risk is reasonably foreseeable, then there may be a breach.)

The court will take into account: the likelihood of damage occurring the gravity/seriousness of any potential damage the cost and practicability of avoiding or minimising the risk When deciding whether there has been a breach, The court will take into account: the likelihood (probability) of damage occurring the gravity/seriousness of any potential damage the cost and practicability (faisabilité) of avoiding or minimising the risk Look at cases here we have three important cases, what is the rule which we can find from these cases? If the risk is unknown or very small, then there is no breach. (However, if the risk is reasonably foreseeable, then there may be a breach.)

3. Causation of d amage There must be redressable damage caused by the breach There are two elements of causation – There must be factual causation: This is established using the “but for” test: the claimant would not have suffered harm “but for” D’s act/omission Without D’s act/omission, C would not have suffered harm Often its simple But This can be complicated when there is a long, complex series of events which contribute to the harm suffered by a claimant There is also a requirement of legal causation – the damage must not be too remote, (it must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the breach). = the chain of events must not be too long or complex Exercises – potentially leave damage rules for homework

3. Causation of d amage Redressable damage cause by the breach. There must be redressable damage caused by the breach There are two elements of causation – There must be factual causation: This is established using the “but for” test: the claimant would not have suffered harm “but for” D’s act/omission Without D’s act/omission, C would not have suffered harm Often its simple But This can be complicated when there is a long, complex series of events which contribute to the harm suffered by a claimant There is also a requirement of legal causation – the damage must not be too remote, (it must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the breach). = the chain of events must not be too long or complex Exercises – potentially leave damage rules for homework

3. Causation of d amage Redressable damage cause by the breach. i) Factual causation This is established using the “but for” test: the claimant would not have suffered harm “but for” D’s act/omission There must be redressable damage caused by the breach There are two elements of causation – There must be factual causation: This is established using the “but for” test: the claimant would not have suffered harm “but for” D’s act/omission Without D’s act/omission, C would not have suffered harm Often its simple But This can be complicated when there is a long, complex series of events which contribute to the harm suffered by a claimant There is also a requirement of legal causation – the damage must not be too remote, (it must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the breach). = the chain of events must not be too long or complex Exercises – potentially leave damage rules for homework

3. Causation of d amage Redressable damage caused by the breach. i) Factual causation This is established using the “but for” test: the claimant would not have suffered harm “but for” D’s act/omission ii) Legal causation The damage must not be too remote (it must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the breach). There must be redressable damage caused by the breach There are two elements of causation – There must be factual causation: This is established using the “but for” test: the claimant would not have suffered harm “but for” D’s act/omission Without D’s act/omission, C would not have suffered harm Often its simple But This can be complicated when there is a long, complex series of events which contribute to the harm suffered by a claimant There is also a requirement of legal causation – the damage must not be too remote, (it must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the breach). = the chain of events must not be too long or complex Exercises – potentially leave damage rules for homework