Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort

Product Information

INEVITABLE ACCIDENT: Inevitable accident also works as a defence of negligence. An inevitable accident is that which could not possibly, be prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill. it means accident physically unavoidable.

Secondly, multiple cases must be satisfied, as where there are a number of possible causes of injury, the claimant must prove the defendants breach of duty caused the harm or was a material contribution, as established in Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sushila Devi, AIR 1999 SC 1929; a person passing by the road died because of fall of branch of a tree standing on the road, on his head. The Municipal Corporation was held liable. I. MEANING: In everyday usage, the word ‘negligence’ denotes mere carelessness. In legal sense it signifies failure to exercise standard of care which the doer as a reasonable man should have exercised in the circumstances. In general, there is a legal duty to take care when it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to do so was likely to cause injury. Negligence is a mode in which many kinds of harms may be caused by not taking such adequate precautions. Lastly, the courts will consider the social importance of risky activity. If the defendant’s actions served a socially useful purpose then he may have been justified in taking greater risks as seen in Watt v Hertfordshire County Council. Discussion of hundreds of recent cases, including Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales, Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Poole BC v GN (duty of care); Patel v Mirza (illegality); Wilkes v DePuy International (product liability); Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (defamation); O v Rhodes (intentional infliction of physical or emotional harm); Willers v Joyce (malicious prosecution); JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov (No.14) (conspiracy); and five major Supreme Court decisions on vicarious liability and non-delegable duties, including Barclays Bank v Various Claimants and WM Morrison Supermarkets v Various ClaimantsCONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: It was the Common law rule that anyone who by his own negligence contributed to the injury of which he complains cannot maintain an action against another in respect of it. Because, he will be considered in law to be author of his wrong. The courts must first consider whether the consequences of the defendant’s acts were reasonably foreseeable. For example, damage or harm were reasonable foreseeable in Kent v Griffiths but not in Bourhill v Young. urn:lcp:winfieldjolowicz0000roge:epub:74a92870-5cc4-4fa9-8129-d6e8f6c77b88 Foldoutcount 0 Grant_report Arcadia #4281 Identifier winfieldjolowicz0000roge Identifier-ark ark:/13960/t44r8mz74 Invoice 2089 Isbn 0421768509 Secondly, whether there is a relation of proximity between the parties. For example, was there a legal relationship or physical closeness? There was proximity in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Club, but not in Caparo.

This edition has been updated to incorporate the developments that have taken place in the law of tort. Although centred in English law, significant case law developments in other major Commonwealth jurisdictions are also considered III. ESSENTIALS OF NEGLIGENCE: - In an action for negligence, the plaintiff has to prove the following essentials: In Brown v. Kendal, (1859) 6 Cussing 292; the plaintiff’s and defendant’s dogs were fighting, while the defendant was trying to separate them, he accidentally hit the plaintiff in his eye who was standing nearby. The injury to the plaintiff was held to be result of inevitable accident and the defendant was not liable.In laymen’s terms, tort is a civil wrong or breach of a duty to another person on which courts, based on fault, impose liability and it is mainly concerned with providing compensation for personal injury and property damage caused by negligence. BREACH OF DUTY TO TAKE CARE: Yet another essential condition for the liability in negligence is that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant committed a breach of duty to take care or he failed to perform that duty. In Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co., (1856) LR 11 Exch. 781; ALDERSON, B. defined negligence as, negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man…….. would do, or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do. In Nichols v. Marsland, (1875) LR 10 Ex.255; the defendant had a series of artificial lakes on his land in the construction or maintenance of which there had been no negligence. Owing to an exceptional heavy rain, some of the reservoirs burst and carried away four country bridges. It wa held that, the defendant was not liable as the water escaped by the act of God. The second factor the courts will take into account to establish negligence is breach of duty. This is commonly known as the ‘reasonable man’ test, and simply asks whether the defendant has done something a reasonable person would not have done, or failed to do something that a reasonable person would not have. Baron Alderson in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co said: