Tort Law Introduction and Theories

A legal principle that holds individuals responsible for exercising reasonable care to avoid causing harm to others, particularly those who could be affected by their actions.

A legal case that established the 'neighbour principle', stating that we should take reasonable care to avoid harming others through acts or omissions.

The legal test for determining who is owed a duty of care, considering those who are closely and directly affected by your actions.

Before Donoghue v Stevenson, courts were reluctant to impose a duty of care in cases where there was no contract.

A legal case involving a contract for the maintenance of a mail coach, where the court ruled that no duty of care was owed to the driver, as there was no contract between them.

A legal case expanding liability for defective goods, but still within the limited scope of pre-Donoghue v Stevenson law.

The expansion of the law through a gradual process, applying existing principles to new situations to achieve practical justice.

A legal claim for damages arising from an accident or harm caused by another person's negligence.

A legal principle stating that a person should be held liable for harm caused by their actions if it was reasonably foreseeable that such harm could occur and the victim was in close proximity to the harm.

A legal doctrine that imposes liability on a person who has caused harm, even if they were not at fault, if they engaged in an activity that is considered inherently risky.

A legal concept where a person is responsible for compensating another person for the harm they caused.

A legal concept that aims to distribute the costs of harm fairly among parties involved in an accident, considering factors beyond the fault of the person who caused the harm.

A legal doctrine related to the storage of hazardous substances, where a person is liable for harm caused by the escape of such substances, regardless of fault.

A legal principle that seeks to establish a balance in society by holding individuals responsible for their actions and ensuring those harmed receive adequate compensation.

A situation where a person is responsible for the harm caused by their actions, even if there was no intentional wrongdoing. This principle is based on a duty of care owed to others.

A system where individuals are compensated regardless of fault, often funded through taxation or levies.

A framework where individuals are compensated based on their contributions, often through insurance premiums.

Liability arises only after harm is caused, meaning there's no legal obligation to protect someone from potential harm before it occurs.

The system in New Zealand which compensates individuals injured in accidents, funded through general taxation and employer levies.

A legal system where individuals are held liable when their actions or omissions cause harm, based on whether they acted reasonably or not.

A failure to fulfill the standard of reasonable care expected in a given situation, leading to harm being caused.

The direct link between the breach of duty and the harm caused.

Circumstances or arguments presented by the defendant to reduce or eliminate their legal liability, sometimes for reasons like contributory negligence.

A legal principle that established that manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers who might use their products.

A legal concept where costs of accidents are assigned to those who caused them, especially in cases of negligence.

The Anns test is a two-part test that helps determine if a duty of care exists in a negligence case. Part one: is there a sufficient relationship of proximity? Part two: are there any reasons to limit the scope of the duty?

This happens when a new category of negligence is recognized, often through judicial precedent. Existing case law is extended to cover a similar situation, widening the scope of the duty of care.

An individual or organization takes on a responsibility to protect someone from harm. This can create a duty of care, even without a pre-existing legal relationship.

This category of negligence emerges when a new situation isn't covered by existing legal precedent, requiring courts to establish a new duty of care.

Professionals who make negligent statements that are relied upon by others, causing them loss, can be found liable for negligence.

A legal test used to determine whether a duty of care is owed by a defendant to a claimant. It considers three factors: reasonable foreseeability of harm, proximity of the relationship, and fairness, justness, and reasonableness of imposing a duty.

The defendant's actions must have been reasonably foreseeable to cause harm to the claimant. This means that a reasonable person in the defendant's position should have anticipated the risk of harm.

A close and direct relationship must exist between the defendant and the claimant, indicating a connection that justifies the imposition of a duty of care.

The court considers whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the defendant in the specific circumstances. Factors like public policy and potential floodgates of litigation are considered.

The claimant bears the burden of proof to establish the three elements of the Caparo test, demonstrating that a duty of care exists and justifying the imposition of liability on the defendant.

Various methods can be used to establish a duty of care, including identifying existing statutory duties, analogous precedent, assumed responsibility, or satisfying the Caparo test.

The expansion of legal principles through incremental steps, applying established precedents to new situations, creating a gradual evolution of legal rules.