Law 2105 TORT LLB

0 Comment

It should be noted that, it does not necessarily mean that suffering a loss, such as the one’s mentioned above, will warrant a remedy from the law. This is because. the Law of Tort requires that a claimant must be able to show that the tort caused them a loss and that the person who is committing the tort owed them a duty of care2. Therefore, the Law of Tort is concerned mostly with involuntary responsibilities that the law imposes on persons. There are various torts including tort of negligence and that of nuisance. However, this paper will focus on the tort of negligence, which is a tort that covers various situations in which a person is considered to have, negligently, caused harm or damage to others. By studying the case of Smith v Littlewoods Organization Ltd [1987] 1 All ER 710 and that Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, with special attention on relevant case laws, this paper will attempt to critically analyze and study the circumstances under which a failure to take action may result in a claim, in negligence. Discussion The Tort of Negligence is a very significant tort in law that takes care of various cases, in which persons cause harm or damage to others that result in loss. … Therefore, people are not just responsible for loss, damage or harm that they cause intentionally, bust are also responsible for their failure to act reasonably as they would be expected to-this is what is referred to as negligence-and it will result in negligence4. Simply, the tort of negligence expects that people ensure that their actions do not result in harm to others. For a failure to take action result in a claim of negligence, a duty of care must be owed to the claimant by the defendant as it was in the Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 case, in which the judge, in his determination, argued that every person owed, his or her neighbor-someone with whom it is foreseen that, ones omissions or actions would injure-a duty of care5. It is imperative that every person takes reasonable care so as to avoid omissions or acts that can foreseeably result in reasonable injury to another. This was referred to as the ‘neighbor principle,’ which was coined by Lord Atkins6. Unless duty of care for another has been already duly established, such as the duty owed to employees by their employers or manufacturers to the consumers, then, failure to take action cannot result in a claim of negligence. However, there have been problems of establishing the existence of owed a duty of care as was with the case of Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990). This resulted in the need for development of a tool, coined by the House of Lords, referred to as the three-stage test. This test helps in determining the existence of duty of care-which is a requirement for a failure to act to be deemed a claim of negligence-based the nature of the loss, relationship between the defendant of whom the duty of care is