Introduction to Tort Law

A legal principle where someone is liable for damages if they fail to exercise reasonable care and their negligence causes harm to another.

A legal concept that emphasizes making the person who caused the harm responsible for compensating the victim. It aims to restore balance and fairness.

A primary duty owed to protect someone from potential harm, followed by a secondary duty to compensate for any harm that occurs.

The idea that the harm caused should be distributed fairly among those involved, including not just the person who caused the harm but also potentially insurers or employers.

The cost of harm caused by an accident is borne by the person responsible for the negligence.

If no negligence is found, the victim bears the cost of the harm caused.

A type of tort where the plaintiff doesn't need to prove the defendant acted negligently. The defendant is liable simply because of the harm caused, even if they didn't intend to cause it.

A type of tort where the plaintiff must prove the defendant acted negligently and this negligence caused the harm.

A person is only liable for the cost of an accident if they failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it.

Elements required to establish negligence: duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and defenses.

A legal principle that holds someone liable for harm caused by a dangerous substance they keep on their property, even if they took precautions to prevent it from escaping.

The legal responsibility owed by one person to another, preventing harm or injury.

A legal wrong that involves intentional acts causing harm to another person, such as defamation, trespass, assault, or battery.

The act or omission that violates the duty of care, causing harm.

The concept of a theoretical state where everyone is in balance and functioning normally. Accidents disrupt this balance, and the person causing the accident is responsible for restoring it.

The question of who should bear the financial responsibility for accidents, especially in situations where there's no clear agreement or insurance coverage.

The concept that a broad principle of liability for foreseeable damage exists but the duty of care is used to identify specific instances where liability is not imposed.

A three-part test used to determine whether a duty of care exists in a negligence claim. It involves assessing reasonable foreseeability of harm, proximity between the parties, and the fairness, justice, and reasonableness of imposing a duty.

The defendant's action must have been reasonably foreseeable to cause harm to the claimant.

There must be a relationship of proximity or closeness between the defendant and the claimant.

It must be deemed fair, just, and reasonable to impose a legal duty on the defendant to prevent the harm suffered by the claimant.

A duty of care may be established based on existing legal obligations, such as statutory duties.

In determining whether a duty of care exists, courts may look to previous legal decisions where similar situations were considered.

If a defendant assumes responsibility for the claimant's well-being, a duty of care may arise.

This legal doctrine, developed in Donoghue v. Stevenson, specifies that a duty of care exists when harm is reasonably foreseeable to someone who would be considered a 'neighbor' of the alleged wrongdoer.

A legal system where compensation is awarded for harm caused, regardless of fault. This system is funded through taxes and levies, and claims are categorized based on the type of harm.

The Donoghue case expanded over time to include specific situations, often involving pre-existing relationships between the parties, establishing duties of care.

This legal principle established a duty of care for professionals providing negligent statements that cause loss to those who relied upon them.

This case extended liability to a third party, highlighting the growing scope of the neighbor principle.

This landmark case codified the first stage of establishing duty of care, making it more formal and clear-cut.

A legal system that blends elements of both corrective and distributive justice, aiming to balance individual accountability with social welfare.

The Anns Test is a two-pronged approach used to determine if a duty of care exists. It considers the proximity between the parties and the foreseeability of harm.

The first part of the Anns Test determines if there is a sufficient relationship between the parties that carelessness could cause harm.

A legal principle where courts determine who is responsible for harm based on factors like economic considerations.

The second part of the Anns Test considers if there are any reasons to limit or reduce the scope of duty.

The situation where someone suffers harm due to negligence, but the responsibility for compensation is unclear. This raises questions about who should be held liable.

A legal case where a person injured by a defective product (a bottle of ginger beer containing a snail) sued the manufacturer. The case established the principle of manufacturer's liability and the 'neighbor principle'.

A situation where someone is legally responsible for the damages or injuries caused by their actions or omissions.

The legal concept that courts previously used to prevent liability for accidental harm, unless a contractual duty existed. This meant that accidental costs lay where they fell.

A legal concept where courts were cautious about establishing general principles of care in the absence of a contract. It reflected a 'defendant-friendly' approach to liability.

A legal term that refers to a situation where someone is injured due to a defective product.

A legal concept that allows courts to gradually expand the law based on existing principles and practical justice. It creates a system where legal principles evolve over time.