The tort of negligence is one of the most important fields of tort law in modernized law. When a claimant suffers from an act or an omission on behalf of a third party, innumerable ways and means are proposed to impose liability on the defendant. It is essential and necessary for the claimant to prove that the defendant was at fault. Negligence at tort is a faulty parameter considering the reason or cause for the liability to arise. In order to enable the action on the claim for negligence, the claimant is expected to fill three requirements. In the first situation, a duty of care arises from the particular situation wherein, he/she was at the time of the incident, encountered a breach of that duty, and thereafter he/she suffered damages caused by the breach of duty which in this situation was not too remote. The imposition of negligence liability is a complex matter to be fulfilled in judging new cases. This fulfillment is vital when judges are dealing with novel cases where some of the circumstances can cause problems in terms of interpretation.
[...] He first noticed that courts may be prepared to find that a duty of care exists more readily in cases involving injury or damage to person or property than in those involving only economic loss” as stated in Caparo v Dickman Secondly, Secondly that it is “important if not determinate factors in deciding whether or not a duty of care exists may be the assumption by the defendant concerned of responsibility toward the claimant concerned” as said in Hedley Byrne v. [...]
[...] In our case, is X and another v Hounslow London Borough Council[7] , Madisson J held that there were several elements that confirmed the proximate relationship between the claimants and the defendant: first, the Defendant was the Claimants' landlord, moreover the Defendant was well aware of the Claimants' disabilities and had provided social services and support for them from 1995 to 2000 and at last, the Defendant had visited their home in 2000. We can conclude from those elements that there was a close enough relationship between the two parties that could amount to proximity. [...]
[...] Therefore, Madisson J chose to apply the tri-partite test as established in the case Caparo v Dickman because he was dealing with difficult and developing area of the which has not been treated before. Madisson J used the Caparo method constructing his demonstration in a very logical way. He took each requirements imposed by the tri-partite test and applied it to the case. The fist requirement to establish a duty of care, as stated above, is that the harm must have been reasonably foreseeable. [...]
[...] The test to apply here is the test. The test shows that if the Claimants had been moved from their flat soon enough, the attacks they suffered would not have happened. Therefore, the failure and omission of the Defendant to move the Claimants contributed to their loss and injury and causation can be inferred. Madisson J “stage by stage” approach on this case gave rise to an action in the tort of negligence for the Claimants who are entitled to [...]
[...] in Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman is preferable, in my view, that the law should develop novel categories of negligence incrementally and by analogy with established categories, rather than by a massive extension of a prima facie duty of care restrained only by indefinable considerations which ought to negative or to reduce or to limit the scope of the duty or the class of persons to whom it is owed.” Here, Maddison J used the incremental approach in order to make his judgment more accurate. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
