Negligence and Liability Term Paper
The core of the tort was that an individual should be subject to liability for carelessly causing injuries to others. In addition, fundamental to negligence, apparent from the earliest of date, was the requirement of a causal link between the offender’s breach of duty and the accuser’s damage that might have been natural, possible, contiguous, and not too far-fetched. As early justice system and observers looked into the development of negligence as a subset of tort theory, they increasingly split it into the fundamental parts, which are essentially the pieces, and concentrated on the offender’s failure to exercise due care and the accuser’s proximately ensuing harm. As the law of negligence has grown, its parts have been expressed in different ways, however, most courts and scholars came to view that it comprises of four elements.
Perhaps its most widely agreed iteration should be duty, breach, cause and damage. Moreover, the unique characteristics of the defendants can be an a concern their behavior is taken into consideration regarding a reasonable person of the same age, intelligence and experience. Other considerations might be physical disability, although mental disorders might not relieve individuals from the reasonable standard (Deakin, Johnston & Markesinis, 2012). Under certain situations, a special duty can arise for the defendants to protect the plaintiffs from risk. Such duties can emerge from different source, which include contractual relationships and professional roles. For instance a contract can specify a high standard and clients and third parties can sue a professional for less than the required levels of performance for the professional work, which was the proximate cause of the injuries.
Under the last interpretation, when some injuries prove impossible to be reasonably foreseen, then no liability can be set for injuries that occur from negligence (Best & Donohue III, 2012). When looking at negligence, it is always important to look at the concept from case law, and the present case law might suffice. Consider Donoghue v Stevenson  AC 562. The Case A complainant sued a manufacturer for beer she had consumed, and which later made her suffer physically and psychologically. The appellant claimed that at the time of noticing the remains of the decomposed snail, it made her suffer from shock and complications related with gastro enteritis. Lord Atkin found that the appellant Ms Donoghue was owed a duty of care by the respondent manufacturer and was therefore entitled to a relief in the form of damages due to the harm caused to her.
Lord Atkin also based his opinion on the neighbor principle that requires that we only do acts that are reasonable to those around us taking care not to injure them. On the other hand, Lord Macmillan while agreeing with the duty of care principle introduced the principle of reasonable foreseability and remoteness in negligence claims. He also introduced the principle of burden of proof in negligence claims while finding the respondent liable for its negligence. Lord Thankerton allowed the appeal on the basis that the appellant had proved her relationship with the respondent in terms of the duty of care owed to it and the negligence that had been committed. Donoghue v Stevenson. AC, 562, 580. Best, E. K. Donohue III, J. Markesinis and Deakin's tort law.
Oxford University Press. Geistfeld, M. A. Tort law and the inherent limitations of monetary exchange: Property rules, liability rules, and the negligence rule. Mello, M. M. Brennan, T. A. Defensive medicine and tort reform: a wide view.
From $10 to earn access
Only on Studyloop