Comparing Principles: Ordinary Negligence And Occupiers Liability

775 Words4 Pages
Ordinary Negligence and Occupiers’ Liability – Comparing Principles. Based on the discussion above, we can retrieve the key features of both ordinary negligence and occupier’s liability. In essence, the ordinary idea of negligence is when you unintentionally cause injury to someone in a situation where you should have known your action could cause harm. The plaintiff must establishes three factors to constitute negligence. Firstly, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. What is duty of care in this context? It is the responsibility to avoid careless actions that could cause harm to one or more persons. Secondly, the plaintiff bears the onus to prove that the defendant failed to succumb to the proper standard of care that a reasonable person would have provided in a similar situation. Standard of care is a way of measuring how much care one person owes another. For example, doctors or nurses, have a high standard of care toward others than the reasonable person. Third, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s actions were the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Determining the cause, is often done by applying the “but for” test. An injury would not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s actions. In short, a person must firstly has a duty of care and he breached his duty that causes damages or loss to the other party to be liable for negligence. In contrast, people who own or occupy property have duty to maintain their property

More about Comparing Principles: Ordinary Negligence And Occupiers Liability

Open Document