Negligence and Damages: Duty of Care, Reasonable Foreseeability, and Intervening Acts, Slides of Remedies

Download Negligence and Damages: Duty of Care, Reasonable Foreseeability, and Intervening Acts and more Slides Remedies in PDF only on Docsity! Negligence In order for a claim of tortuous liability in negligence to be actionable, certain fundamental pre-requisites need to be established. The requirements of the modern tort of negligence were stated by Lord Wright in ‘Lochgelly and Coal Co Ltd v McMullan’ （Lord Wright coined the term ‘statutory negligence’. He affirmed the need for ‘damage’ as an essential element of actionable negligence, saying: ‘In strict legal analysis, negligence means more than heedless or careless conduct, whether in omission or commission; it properly connotes the complex concept of duty, breach, and damage thereby suffered by the person to whom the duty was owing: on all this the liability depends.’ ） as being (1) the existence of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the claimant, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) the damage or injury caused by that breach of duty. Moreover, we need to examine the relationship of (4) causation and (5) remoteness between the damage/injury and the breach of duty, then attempt to clarify the (6) remedies for the plaintiff. On the other hand, Damage Negligence is essentially concerned with compensating people who have suffered damage as a result of the carelessness of others. Hence, first of all, we need to identify the category of compensable forms of damage. In this case, the plaintiff suffered (1) personal injury and (2) property damage. Besides, the defendant by negligent act or omission may be liable not only for the damage caused to the property, but also for (3) any additional financial loss which is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the damage to the property. Duty of Care The formal requirements that must be satisfied before a duty of care is held to exist are (1) reasonable forseeabilty of damage, and (2) a sufficiently proximate relationship between the parties, which (3) must be ‘just and reasonable' to impose a duty. (1) Reasonable foreseeability:  A defendant will owe a duty of care to a plaintiff where it is reasonably foreseeable that his acts or omissions might bring harm to the plaintiff.  It is not necessary to show that this particular accident and this particular damage were probable; it is sufficient if the accident is of a class that might well be anticipated as one of the reasonable and probably results of a wrongful act (Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146, 156). Facts Harwood's servant brought a two horse carriage into a residential neighbourhood and parked it across the street from a police station while he was off doing work. While the servant was away, children upset the horses and they broke free and were on a path to injure people. Haynes, a police officer, saw this from a window. He ran out and stopped the horses, however one of them fell and injured him. He brought an action for damages but was unsuccessful at trial and appealed. Issue When someone knowingly puts himself or herself in danger to protect others, is the negligent party liable for damages suffered in the protection effort? Decision Appeal allowed Reasons The court holds that in cases such as these, the volenti non fit injuria maxim does not apply. If someone acts to help those in danger as a result of a person's negligent actions, that person is liable for damages resulting from their actions as long as they are reasonable in the circumstances. Taking risk upon yourself is not applicable in rescue circumstances. Ratio The doctrine of the assumption of risk does not apply where the plaintiff has, under exigency caused by the defendant’s wrongful misconduct, consciously and deliberately faced a risk, even of death, to rescue another from imminent danger of personal injury or death, whether the person endangered is owed a duty of care by the plaintiff or not.  An intervening act does not cut off liability as long as the intervening act is a reasonably foreseeable result of the original act (Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112). Facts Mr Chapman (the Appellant) drove negligently causing an accident. The car he was driving flipped over and he was thrown into the road where he lay unconscious. A Dr. Cherry, who was driving past, stopped his vehicle and went to help Mr Chapman. While he was attending to the unconscious Mr Chapman, Dr. Cherry was struck by a car driven by Mr Hearse (the Respondent) who was also driving negligently. Dr Cherry died as a result. Mr Chapman was held partially responsible for Dr Cherry’s death, and was ordered to pay money to his estate. Mr Chapman lodged an appeal, claiming he owed no duty of care to Dr Cherry, and that the negligent driving by Mr Hearse had broken the chain of causation. Issues Reasonable foreseeable; duty of care; new intervening act Held Reasonable Foreseeable Test The precise sequence of events need not be foreseen, it is sufficient if it appears that injury to a class of persons of which he was one might reasonably have been foreseen as a consequence. More specifically, the Court in a joint and unanimous judgment stated at [6]: One thing is certain and that is that in order to establish the prior existence of a duty of care with respect to a plaintiff subsequently injured as the result of a sequence of events following a defendant’s carelessness it is not necessary for the