4. Negligence: causation

2020 ◽  
pp. 80-105
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan ◽  
Vera Bermingham
Keyword(s):  
Essential Element ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
The Third ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Primary Means

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. In addition to duty of care and breach of that duty, the third essential element to bring a successful action in negligence is causation of damage. In other words, the claimant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the breach caused his damage. The defendant cannot be made liable for the harm suffered by the claimant if he is not responsible, or partly responsible, for such harm—even if he has been negligent. The question of causation can be divided into two issues: causation in fact and causation in law (also known as remoteness). The primary means of establishing factual causation is the ‘but for’ test. Reasonable foreseeability of damage of the relevant type (Wagon Mound) is required to establish that the claimant’s injury is not too remote. The chain of causation may be broken by unreasonable or unforeseeable acts or events (novus actus interveniens).

6. Negligence: duty of care problem areas

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vera Bermingham ◽  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Essential Element ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
The Third ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Primary Means

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. In addition to duty of care and breach of that duty, the third essential element to bring a successful action in negligence is causation of damage. In other words, the claimant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the breach caused his damage. The defendant cannot be made liable for the harm suffered by the claimant if he is not responsible, or partly responsible, for such harm — even if he has been negligent. The question of causation can be divided into two issues: causation in fact and causation in law (also known as remoteness). The primary means of establishing factual causation is the ‘but for’ test. Reasonable foreseeability of damage of the relevant type (Wagon Mound) is required to establish that the claimant’s injury is not too remote. The chain of causation may be broken by unreasonable or unforeseeable acts or events (novus actus interveniens).

2. Negligence: duty of care

2020 ◽  
pp. 23-58
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan ◽  
Vera Bermingham
Keyword(s):  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Physical Injury ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Property Damage ◽  
Key Points ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Way ◽  
Public Bodies

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. Negligence is a tort in its own right and involves an unintentional wrong as opposed to trespass which involves an intentional wrong. It has three main elements: duty of care (whether the defendant owes the claimant a duty of care), breach (whether the defendant has breached that duty), and damage (whether that breach has caused damage of a legally recognized kind to the claimant). Duty of care is determined by proximity, foreseeability, and policy and is most likely to be established in cases of positive acts which cause physical injury or property damage. This chapter provides an overview of the history of negligence and discusses the function of duty of care in negligence. It also considers the way duty of care has been defined and developed and applies the principles of duty of care in the areas of omissions and liability of public bodies.

9. Employers’ liability and non-delegable duties

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vera Bermingham ◽  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Key Points ◽  
The Common

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. While tort law is largely based on case law developed by judges through the common law, the liability of occupiers for the injuries suffered by those on their premises is governed by two statutes: the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984. The chapter explains the scope of an occupier’s liability and how it relates to other aspects of negligence, considers the duty of care owed by occupiers to lawful visitors under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, discusses the duty of care owed by occupiers to trespassers under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 and how it relates to the previous common law duty of care.

14. Elements of defamation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vera Bermingham ◽  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Current State ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Continuous Activity ◽  
State Of Affairs

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. Rylands v Fletcher was an 1868 case that gave birth to a rule imposing strict liability for damage caused by the escape of dangerous things from land. The tort in Rylands v Fletcher differs from nuisance because it does not consider the involvement of the defendant in a continuous activity or an ongoing state of affairs. What distinguishes Rylands v Fletcher from actions in negligence is that there is no need for the existence of a duty of care and its breach, along with the questionable place of personal injury as an actionable type of damage. This chapter examines the tort in Rylands v Fletcher and the nature of the rule that arose from it. It also considers recent case law developments concerning Rylands v Fletcher and their impact on the current state of the law. Finally, the chapter evaluates the defences pertaining to Rylands v Fletcher.

13. Rylands v Fletcher

2020 ◽  
pp. 315-328
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan ◽  
Vera Bermingham
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Current State ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Continuous Activity ◽  
State Of Affairs

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. Rylands v Fletcher was an 1868 case that gave birth to a rule imposing strict liability for damage caused by the escape of dangerous things from land. The tort in Rylands v Fletcher differs from nuisance because it does not consider the involvement of the defendant in a continuous activity or an ongoing state of affairs. What distinguishes Rylands v Fletcher from actions in negligence is that there is no need for the existence of a duty of care and its breach, along with the questionable place of personal injury as an actionable type of damage. This chapter examines the tort in Rylands v Fletcher and the nature of the rule that arose from it. It also considers recent case law developments concerning Rylands v Fletcher and their impact on the current state of the law. Finally, the chapter evaluates the defences pertaining to Rylands v Fletcher.

7. Negligence: occupiers’ liability

2020 ◽  
pp. 165-195
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan ◽  
Vera Bermingham
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Key Points ◽  
The Common

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. While tort law is largely based on case law developed by judges through the common law, the liability of occupiers for the injuries suffered by those on their premises is governed by two statutes: the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984. The chapter explains the scope of an occupier’s liability and how it relates to other aspects of negligence, considers the duty of care owed by occupiers to lawful visitors under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, discusses the duty of care owed by occupiers to trespassers under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 and how it relates to the previous common law duty of care.

7. General defences

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vera Bermingham ◽  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Physical Injury ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Property Damage ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
Key Points ◽  
The Law ◽  
Principle Of Liability

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. The tort of negligence originated as a remedy for property damage and physical injury. However, recovery of compensation for psychiatric injury and pure economic loss, in cases where they were not caused by physical injury or property damage, has proved difficult. Duty of care for psychiatric injury is contingent upon whether the claimant is a primary or secondary victim. This chapter discusses the policy reasons for limiting duty of care for psychiatric injury, the mechanisms by which the law limits duty of care for psychiatric injury, the meaning of ‘pure economic loss’, and the development of the Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964) principle of liability for negligent statements. The chapter also examines the ‘thin skull’ rule, which applies to psychiatric injury in the same way as to physical injury.

4. Breach of duty

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vera Bermingham ◽  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Physical Injury ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Property Damage ◽  
Key Points ◽  
History Of ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
The Way ◽  
Public Bodies

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. Negligence is a tort in its own right and involves an unintentional wrong as opposed to trespass which involves an intentional wrong. It has three main elements: duty of care (whether the defendant owes the claimant a duty of care), breach (whether the defendant has broken that duty), and damage (whether that breach has caused damage of a legally recognized kind to the claimant). Duty of care is determined by proximity, foreseeability, and policy and is most likely to be established in cases of positive acts which cause physical injury or property damage. This chapter provides an overview of the history of negligence and discusses the function of duty of care in negligence. It also considers the way duty of care has been defined and developed and applies the principles of duty of care in the areas of omissions and liability of public bodies.

5. Negligence: duty of care problem areas

2020 ◽  
pp. 106-145
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan ◽  
Vera Bermingham
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Physical Injury ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Property Damage ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
Key Points ◽  
The Law ◽  
Principle Of Liability

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. The tort of negligence originated as a remedy for property damage and physical injury. However, recovery of compensation for psychiatric injury and pure economic loss, in cases where they were not caused by physical injury or property damage, has proved difficult. Duty of care for psychiatric injury is contingent upon whether the claimant is a primary or secondary victim. This chapter discusses the policy reasons for limiting duty of care for psychiatric injury, the mechanisms by which the law limits duty of care for psychiatric injury, the meaning of ‘pure economic loss’, and the development of the Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964) principle of liability for negligent statements. The chapter also examines the ‘thin skull’ rule, which applies to psychiatric injury in the same way as to physical injury.

6. Involuntary manslaughter

2020 ◽  
pp. 133-160
Author(s):  
Nicola Monaghan
Keyword(s):  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Corporate Manslaughter

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. This chapter explores the main types of involuntary manslaughter: unlawful act manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, and reckless manslaughter, as well as the offence of corporate manslaughter. Unlawful act manslaughter arises where the defendant intentionally commits an unlawful act which a reasonable person would recognise exposes the victim to the risk of some harm and the victim dies as a result. Gross negligence manslaughter arises where the defendant causes the death of the victim through the breach of a duty of care owed to that victim.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document