Negligence Tort Law

In the realm of Negligence Tort law, liability hinges on three core principles: duty of care, breach, and damage. Once these principles are established, compensation may be awarded to the claimant to restore them to their pre-damage state.

Firstly, the duty of care is determined through the three-part Caparo Test, stemming from the Caparo Industries PLC vs Dickman case. This test, as outlined by Lord Bridge, examines foreseeability of damage, proximity between parties, and the fairness of imposing a duty of care. Foreseeability refers to predictability of harm, demonstrated in cases like Kent v Griffiths, where an ambulance delay led to further harm. Proximity entails various forms of closeness, illustrated in Bourhill v Young, where a lack of proximity absolved the defendant of liability.

Additionally, the fairness, justness, and reasonableness of imposing a duty of care are evaluated through a policy test, aiming to prevent frivolous claims. In Mulcahy v Ministry of Defence, the court sided with the defendant, considering the impracticality of expecting duty of care in a battlefield scenario.

Secondly, breach occurs when the defendant fails to meet their duty of care. Factors influencing breach include the likelihood and magnitude of risk, practicality of precautions, benefits of taking risks, and the standard of care expected from the defendant. For instance, in Bolton v Stone, a cricket club was deemed not liable for a rare incident of a cricket ball injuring a passer-by, as reasonable precautions had been taken.

Thirdly, damage is established if the defendant's actions or omissions were a factual cause of harm, determined by the 'but for' test. Moreover, the damage must not be too remote, necessitating a clear link between cause and consequence. In Wagon Mound No.1, the defendant was liable for damage to a nearby wharf caused by oil discharge but not for damage to a ship set alight by a chain of events too removed from the initial negligence.

Lastly, the 'Thin Skull Rule' considers the vulnerability or particular weaknesses of the claimant, holding the defendant responsible for foreseeable harm, regardless of the claimant's unique susceptibility. In Smith v Leech Brain, despite the victim's pre-existing condition, the defendant was held liable for harm caused by molten metal, emphasizing the principle of taking the victim as they are found.

In summary, negligence liability revolves around establishing duty of care, breach, and damage, with each element serving to ensure fair compensation for harm caused by negligence.