Liability For Negligence

In tort, the term ‘negligence’ has several meanings. It can refer to careless behaviour, negligent conduct or legal concept of fault. To succeed a claim in tort, one has to prove that there was intentional and direct interference with a person or property. Claimants could therefore claim a case for liability of carelessness. The courts allowed such claims rarely, and usually required an extra element such as fraud. Hence, there was no general duty of care. This changed after the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] .

Liability for negligence occurs when the defendant has a duty of care to the claimant, has breached that duty and this breach is the cause of the claimant’s damage. Showing the defendant’s conduct fallen below the applicable

To support this is the case of Nettleship v Weston [1971] in this case it was found that the same standard of care was expected by all motorists, irrespective of their age and experience it also included learner drivers . In some situations the reasonable person test is not used and other factors are considered. If the defendant is a professional or particularly skilled, then he/she will be judged on a higher standards against their respective peers. In case of doctors, the famous ‘Bolam test’ will be used as laid down in the case of Bolam v Friern Hosopital Management Committee [1957] in this case it was said that “..the standard of care expected by the professionals is not that of the reasonable person, but that of a reasonable person having the same skills as the defendants’. The standard anticipated by professionals is that of a proficient person of professional opinion, not of professional opinion generally. The courts have permitted the doctors to set their own standards and this has been argued

In the case of Bolton v Stone [1951] where the defendant owes a duty to another, they must guard against the risk of causing harm. The court will consider the likelihood of the harm that will occur. In Glasgow Corporation v Muir [1943] the courts consider the foreseeability of harm; the reasonable man cannot be expected to take care against risks that are not foreseeable by him. In Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954] the court considered the social utility of the activity and in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] the House of Lords struck a blow for common sense .There is a statutory recognition for this approach. In Condon v Basi [1985] and Wooldridge v Summer [1963] those who are engaged in sporting events owe normal duty of care to both competitors and