Tort of Negligence: Study Notes

Tort studying I. NEGLIGENCE Negligence is a tort rooted in the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage to the claimant. The modern law of negligence was established in Donoghue v Stevenson where Lord Atkin articulated the "neighbour principle." Key Elements: 1.​Duty of Car...

Tort studying I. NEGLIGENCE Negligence is a tort rooted in the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage to the claimant. The modern law of negligence was established in Donoghue v Stevenson where Lord Atkin articulated the "neighbour principle." Key Elements: 1.​Duty of Care ○​ Determined by proximity, foreseeability, and whether it's fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty (Caparo Industries plc v Dickman ). 2.​Breach of Duty ○​ A breach occurs when the defendant fails to meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable person. ○​ The standard varies based on the defendant's profession or role (see Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee ). 3.​Causation ○​ Factual causation: "But for" test (Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital ). ○​ Legal causation: Remoteness of damage; only damage that is reasonably foreseeable is compensable (The Wagon Mound (No 1) ). 4.​Damage ○​ Must be actual and not hypothetical. ○​ Includes physical harm, psychiatric harm (subject to proximity rules), and pure economic loss (restricted by Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co Ltd ). Defences in Negligence: ​ Contributory negligence (Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945). ​ Volenti non fit injuria (consent to the risk). II. NUISANCE Nuisance is a tort that protects the claimant’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land. Types of Nuisance: 1.​Private Nuisance ○​ An unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land. ○​ Must show that the interference is substantial and unreasonable. ○​ Case law: ​ Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan – Flooding caused by blocked drain. ​ Sturges v Bridgman – The character of the neighbourhood is a relevant factor. 2.​Public Nuisance ○​ Affects a class of people but can be actionable by an individual who suffers special damage. ○​ Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd – Established the requirement of a “class” being affected. ○​ Tate & Lyle v GLC – Special damage from silting in the Thames. 3.​Statutory Nuisance ○​ Defined by legislation (e.g., Environmental Protection Act 1990 in the UK). ○​ Local authorities may issue abatement notices. Factors for Reasonableness: ​ Locality ​ Duration and frequency ​ Malice or motive (e.g., Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett) ​ Sensitivity of claimant (Robinson v Kilvert) ​ Utility of the defendant’s conduct Defences: ​ Prescription  ​ Statutory authority ​ Public benefit ​ Coming to the nuisance (generally not a full defence) Remedies: ​ Damages – for loss of amenity, property damage, etc. ​ Injunctions – to prevent the continuation of the nuisance (Kennaway v Thompson). ​ Abatement – self-help remedy to stop the nuisance. III. RYLANDS V FLETCHER The rule in Rylands v Fletcher (1868) is a separate tort that creates strict liability for escapes of dangerous things from a defendant’s land. Key Elements: 1.​Brings onto land something likely to do mischief ○​ Must be a substance or thing that poses an exceptional risk if it escapes. 2.​Non-natural use of land ○​ Defined as use that increases risk beyond ordinary use (e.g., Rickards v Lothian; Transco plc v Stockport MBC ). 3.​Escape ○​ The thing must move from the defendant’s land to the claimant’s land. ○​ Personal injury is not recoverable under Rylands (see Read v Lyons ). 4.​Foreseeable damage ○​ Added by Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc – damage must be foreseeable. Defences: ​ Act of a stranger ​ Act of God  ​ Statutory authority ​ Consent of the claimant ​ Contributory negligence Current Status and Criticism: ​ The rule is now narrow in scope and often overlaps with nuisance and negligence. ​ Its strict liability character has been diluted with the addition of foreseeability. ​ In Transco, the House of Lords reaffirmed the rule but limited its scope to exceptional cases. ​ Abolished in jurisdictions like Australia (Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd ). Conclusion While negligence focuses on fault, nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher primarily regulate land use. Nuisance addresses ongoing, unreasonable interferences, while Rylands concerns isolated incidents with dangerous substances. The modern relevance of Rylands is limited, but all three doctrines remain important in shaping how private law responds to personal and environmental harms. Sure! Here's a comprehensive set of study notes on negligence in tort law, broken down into key areas: TORT OF NEGLIGENCE – STUDY NOTES 🔹 1. Definition & Elements Negligence is a breach of a legal duty to take care, resulting in damage undesired by the defendant to the claimant. To succeed in a negligence claim, the claimant must prove: 1.​Duty of Care (DoC)​ 2.​Breach of Duty​ 3.​Causation (both factual and legal)​ 4.​Damage (not too remote)​ 🔹 2. Establishing a Duty of Care Classic Case: Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) ​ Introduced the ‘neighbour principle’.​ ​ You owe a duty of care to persons closely and directly affected by your actions.​ Caparo v Dickman (1990) – 3-Part Test 1.​Foreseeability of damage​ 2.​Proximity of relationship​ 3.​Fair, just and reasonable to impose duty​ 🔹 3. Breach of Duty ​ Defendant must fail to meet the standard of care of a reasonable person.​  ​ Nettleship v Weston: Even learners are held to the standard of a reasonable driver.​ Factors to consider: ​ Magnitude of risk​ ​ Cost of precautions​ ​ Social utility of action​ 🔹 4. Causation ​ Factual causation: ‘But for’ test (e.g. Barnett v Chelsea Hospital)​ ​ Legal causation: Remoteness of damage (e.g. Wagon Mound case)​ 🔹 5. Damage ​ Must not be too remote​ ​ Must be a recognized type of harm (personal injury, property damage, etc.)​ 🔹 6. Omissions in Negligence ​ General rule: No liability for pure omissions​ ​ Exceptions:​  ○​ Special relationship (e.g. parent/child)​ ○​ Assumption of responsibility (e.g. lifeguard)​ ○​ Creation of risk​ ○​ Contractual duty​ ○​ Public authorities (e.g. Gorringe v Calderdale, Mitchell v Glasgow)​ 🔹 7. Economic Loss ​ General rule: No duty for pure economic loss​ ​ Two types:​ ○​ Consequential economic loss: Claimable (e.g. Spartan Steel v Martin)​ ○​ Pure economic loss: Not claimable unless under negligent misstatement​ 🔹 8. Negligent Misstatement ​ Allowed after Hedley Byrne v Heller​ ​ Three key requirements:​ ○​ Special relationship​ ○​ Assumption of responsibility​  ○​ Reasonable reliance​ ​ Other relevant cases:​ ○​ Patchett v Swimming Pool Association​ ○​ Merrett v Babb​ ○​ Goodwill v BPAS​ 🔹 9. Psychiatric Harm (Nervous Shock) ​ Claimant must suffer a medically recognized psychiatric illness (e.g. PTSD, depression)​ ​ Must be more than normal grief/stress​ Primary Victims: ​ Directly involved in the incident (e.g. McLoughlin v O’Brian)​ Secondary Victims: ​ Witness to the event​ ​ Must satisfy Alcock criteria:​ 1.​Close tie of love & affection​ 2.​Proximity in time and space​ 3.​Sudden shocking event​ 4.​Foreseeability​ Additional Categories: ​ Rescuers (e.g. Chadwick v British Rail)​ ​ Assumption of responsibility​ ​ Involuntary participants​ 🔹 10. Public Authorities ​ Public bodies can be liable if:​ ○​ They assume a duty of care to an individual​ ○​ Their actions create a new risk of harm​ ○​ Failure to act does not always equal liability (e.g. Gorringe)​