Tort Law Introduction - Key Cases

A branch of law concerned with accidents and the allocation of costs when harm occurs.

A legal principle requiring individuals to take reasonable care to avoid harming others.

A landmark case in tort law that established a general duty of care in the absence of a contractual agreement.

A legal principle that requires individuals to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could injure their 'neighbour'.

A legal concept where the court allocates blame and compensation for harm caused.

A concept that considers the distribution of resources and costs, especially in cases where the responsible party may struggle to cover the costs of harm.

This principle dictates that the person who caused the disturbance should be the one to restore the balance.

A harm-causing event where the defendant's conduct falls below the standard of reasonable care.

A type of tort where liability is imposed without proving fault. Examples include driving above the speed limit and product liability.

A type of tort involving deliberate actions that cause harm, such as defamation, trespass, assault and battery.

A legal concept where the defendant assumes responsibility for the safety or well-being of another person, leading to a duty of care.

A case that established a duty of care for professionals who make negligent statements that are relied upon, leading to loss.

A case that extended liability to third parties for harm caused by someone under their control.

A case that established a two-stage test to determine duty of care, which encompassed foreseeability of harm and proximity.

A case that refined the test for duty of care, requiring foreseeability of harm, proximity, and fairness, justice, and reasonableness.

A case that brought clarity to the duty of care in relation to police negligence, acknowledging the operational context.

A legal concept where the claimant must demonstrate a sufficiently close connection between the defendant's actions and the harm suffered.

A case where the claimant suffered harm from chemicals left on a garment, leading to the court's decision that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the end user.

A two-stage test for duty of care that considers foreseeability of harm and proximity.

A three-stage test for duty of care that incorporates foreseeability of harm, proximity, and fairness, justice, and reasonableness.

A legal concept where the defendant's actions are considered the direct cause of the harm suffered by the claimant.

A rule that formerly governed liability for the accumulation of hazardous substances that could cause harm if they escaped.

A legal principle that states that the person who caused the harm should be held liable for the full extent of the harm.

A system for managing the costs of accidents that involves a combination of corrective justice and distributive justice.

A no-fault scheme for accident compensation in New Zealand, funded by taxation and levies.

A view that emphasizes the importance of compensating for harm already caused, with no prior duty owed.

A view that recognizes a primary duty to protect against potential harm, with a secondary duty to compensate for harm that occurs.

A category of negligence cases that lack clear legal precedent and require careful consideration of the three Caparo test elements.

A term that describes the steps taken to establish a legal obligation to compensate for harm.

The act of failing to meet the required standard of care, leading to a breach of duty.

A legal concept that prevents the defendant from being held liable, even if a duty of care and breach were proven.