Tort Of Negligence Case Study

1004 Words5 Pages
The issue that this essay will deal with is whether Benedict has a claim in the tort of negligence and is entitled to damages. Negligence provides a remedy for claimants who suffer damage because of a person’s failure to use reasonable care. To succeed in a claim, the claimant must prove three vital elements. The first hurdle to establish is that the defendant owed the claimant a legal duty of care. This can arise from an established duty situation such as doctor/patient or a defendant assuming responsibility towards a claimant. Generally, it will be obvious on the facts but, there are several tests to help recognize a duty. Lord Atkin’s neighbour principle formulated in Donoghue determined a duty of care and, laid down the requirement…show more content…
However, the duty situation is not so obvious in the circumstances, when on a field trip would she still owe this duty? yes, by taking the students on the field trip Jenifer voluntarily assumed responsibility towards the students . The Caparo test will confirm this duty: It was reasonably foreseeable that the students would rely on Jenifer’s advice and may suffer personal injury because of that reliance. There is sufficient proximity between Jenifer and Benedict because of their close relationship. It would be ‘fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty’ on Jenifer but, may open floodgates to similar claims. It can be concluded; a duty is established. Secondly, there must be a breach of duty, this is objectively assessed on the balance of probabilities. Firstly, in law how should the defendant have behaved in the circumstances? Secondly, in fact how did the defendant behave, and did there conduct fall below the reasonable standard of care…show more content…
Even if Chris and Liam the week before were not harmed, any lecturer would foresee the danger and understand that tide changes so the water could have been shallower. It is highly likely that serious personal injury would occur from such a dangerous jump. Therefore, Jenifer should have taken more precautions. Clearly, not encouraging the students or at least warning them of the dangers as a common law duty in Poppleton does not carry more burden than the injuries that occurred. There is also, no social benefit of students jumping of the sea-wall . Thirdly, establishing a causal link between the defendant’s negligence and the harm that occurred through causation. Factual causation considers whether the defendants negligence caused the claimants damage. It is assessed by asking ‘but for’ the defendant’s negligence would the damage have occurred? Legal causation refers to the ‘remoteness of damage’. The relevant test is whether the kind of damage suffered was reasonably

More about Tort Of Negligence Case Study

Open Document