Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort

Product Information

In Stanley v. Powell, (1891) 1 QB 86; the plaintiff and the defendant, who were members of a shooting party, went for pheasant shooting. The defendant fired at a pheasant, but the shot from his gun glanced off an oak tree and injured the plaintiff. It was held that the accident was an inevitable accident and the defendant was not liable.

Comprehensive coverage of new legislation, as well as the impact on existing legislation of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union Access-restricted-item true Addeddate 2021-04-29 19:00:43 Associated-names Winfield, P. H., Sir (Percy Henry), 1878-1958. Tort Boxid IA40097508 Camera USB PTP Class Camera Collection_set printdisabled External-identifier DUTY TO TAKE CARE: One of the essential conditions of liability for negligence is that the defendant owed a legal duty towards the plaintiff. The following case laws will throw some light upon this essential element.

MLA

DUTY MUST BE TOWARDS THE PLAINTIFF- It is not sufficient that the defendant owed a duty to take care. It must also be established that the defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff. harm to property, i.e. land and buildings and rights and interests pertaining thereto, and his goods;

In Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra (1996) 2 SCC 634; a cotton mop was left inside the body by the negligence of the doctor. The doctor was held liable. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sushila Devi, AIR 1999 SC 1929; a person passing by the road died because of fall of branch of a tree standing on the road, on his head. The Municipal Corporation was held liable.Discussion of hundreds of recent cases, including Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales, Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Poole BC v GN (duty of care); Patel v Mirza (illegality); Wilkes v DePuy International (product liability); Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (defamation); O v Rhodes (intentional infliction of physical or emotional harm); Willers v Joyce (malicious prosecution); JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov (No.14) (conspiracy); and five major Supreme Court decisions on vicarious liability and non-delegable duties, including Barclays Bank v Various Claimants and WM Morrison Supermarkets v Various Claimants The courts must first consider whether the consequences of the defendant’s acts were reasonably foreseeable. For example, damage or harm were reasonable foreseeable in Kent v Griffiths but not in Bourhill v Young. DUTY TO WHOM: Donoghue v. Stevenson, 1932 AC 562 carried the idea further and expanded the scope of duty saying that the duty so raised extends to your neighbour. Explaining so as to who is my neighbour LORD ATKIN said that the answer must be “the persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question”. The second factor the courts will take into account to establish negligence is breach of duty. This is commonly known as the ‘reasonable man’ test, and simply asks whether the defendant has done something a reasonable person would not have done, or failed to do something that a reasonable person would not have. Baron Alderson in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co said: When deciding whether there has been a breach the courts take into account appropriate factors. These include the probability of harm and any special skill of the defendant. For example, children cannot plead infancy as a defence to a tort. However, children and young people will usually be judged by the objective standard of the ordinarily prudent and reasonable child of the same age, as in Mullins v Richards. However, if a young person deliberately commits an action with an obvious risk of harm, they may be judged by the standards of an adult as in Williams v Humphrey. Here the boy had deliberately exposed a man to the risk of injury, so the court judged him as an adult. A person who claims to have a special skill is judged by the standards of a reasonable person possessing the skill, which he claims to possess as seen in Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital. However, in Wells v Cooper, the defendant was found not liable as hewas merely classed as an apprentice carpenter or underskilled. However, motorists owe a duty of care even if they are a learner or inexperienced driver, which could be seen as being underskilled, as seen in Nettleship v Weston.