Fair Just and Reasonable in Tort Law

In tort law, a duty of care is a legal duty imposed on a person who requires compliance with a standard of due diligence while performing actions that could reasonably be expected to harm others. This is the first element that must be established to proceed with a claim for negligence. The plaintiff must be able to prove a legal duty of care that the defendant breached. In turn, the breach of an obligation may engage the liability of a person. The duty of care may be imposed as of right between persons who do not have a current direct relationship (family, contractual or otherwise), but who end up being related in some way within the meaning of the common law (i.e., case law). After the neighbourhood principle was firmly entrenched in negligence, it became apparent in subsequent years that it did not represent an easily applicable approach to new forms of obligation or situations of unprecedented negligence. [5] Thus, new categories of negligence have developed, as in Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v. Heller & Partners Ltd,[6] to cover different types of acts of negligence, rather than adopting a consistent doctrine or relationship of Donoghue v. Stevenson. [7] Thirty years after the Donoghue decision, Lord Reid in Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co Ltd[8] stated in court: “The time has come when we can and must say that it should apply unless there is a valid justification or explanation for its exclusion.” [9] It was not until Anns v. Merton London Borough Council[10] that the neighbourhood principle was adopted as part of a formal criterion of negligence.

The case concerned the negligent construction of a duplex block commissioned by Merton London Borough Council. The apartments, completed in 1972, had poorly constructed foundations, causing sloping floors and cracks in the walls. The tenants of the cottages sued council for negligence, alleging that there was a duty of care for the proper construction and usability of the building. ⇒ The court has discretion or decides whether an obligation is imposed, regardless of the determination of proximity and predictability, on the basis of whether it is fair, just and reasonable. If the court ultimately decides that the imposition of an obligation would not be just, just and reasonable, no obligation is owed. In this case, it was concluded that if the effects of imposing an obligation were too onerous in this situation, the courts would not impose an obligation on the grounds of fair, just and reasonable non-taxation of an obligation. ⇒ In Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932), it was said that the obligatory criterion was reasonable contemplation + closeness and frankness. In 1932, due diligence applied despite the absence of a prior relationship or interaction and was not limited by the contractual relationship. [2] In this case, it has been established that a manufacturer owes a duty of care to an end consumer for negligence in the manufacture of its products.

Ms. Donoghue`s claim for damages for gastroenteritis and nervous shock was upheld when a ginger beer manufacturer carelessly placed a snail in a bottle she had consumed. Lord Atkin established liability on the basis of the existence of a neighbourhood principle between the two parties to ensure that reasonable precautions were taken in the production of ginger beer so as not to cause undue harm to Mrs Donoghue: Lord Atkins` speech established a neighbourhood principle[4] or a general duty that individuals must exercise due diligence in their acts or omissions. so as not to harm their loved ones. It did not matter that Ms. Donoghue had not been identified or unknown to the manufacturer; since the nature of the damage suffered was foreseeable due to the negligence of the ginger beer producer. [4] Once the appropriate standard has been established, the violation is reproved if the plaintiff proves that the respondent`s conduct was below the relevant standard of due diligence or did not meet the relevant standard of due diligence. [35] Because each of the 50 U.S.

states is a separate sovereign that is free to develop its own tort law under the Tenth Amendment, there are several criteria for determining tort due diligence in the United States. ⇒ The first element in determining whether or not the defendant has a duty of care in a particular case is foreseeability, → requires that a reasonable person in the defendant`s situation reasonably foresaw harm to a class of persons to which the plaintiff (or plaintiff individually) belongs. Legal principle: As there was no precedent on this particular issue, consistent with the Robinson (2018) guidelines, reasonableness had to be taken into account when imposing the tax. The consequences of imposing a tax in this situation would be too heavy, the tax would affect any owner of premises who plants vegetation on his land. In addition, such a requirement would likely create a large number of claims by insurance companies against landowners for contributions to insurance payments. ⇒This element has long been controversial, → however, it is often that proximity and reasonable predictability are a similar concept and an informant of the other. In the Republic of Ireland, under the Occupiers` Liability Act 1995, the duty of care owed to intruders, visitors and “recreational users” may be restricted by residents; provided that there is an appropriate advertisement, for which a prominent notice at the usual entrance to the premises is usually sufficient. [39] However, there are certain circumstances in which a person may be held liable for omissions where there is a previous special relationship. Such a ratio may be prescribed by law; Occupier liability laws, for example, impose a duty of care on occupants of land and land to protect others from harm to the extent reasonable.

In other cases, a relationship may be established or imposed on the basis of the need to protect a person from third parties. It has been found that a school authority has a duty of care for motorists to protect themselves from the risk of a young child on a public road; A driver was injured when he swerved after a four-year-old child escaped and collided with oncoming traffic. [42] There must exist and still is a general conception of relationships which give rise to a duty of care, of which the particular cases found in the books are only examples. The rule that you must love your neighbor becomes the law that you must not hurt your neighbor; and the lawyer`s question: Who is my neighbor? receives a limited response. You must take reasonable precautions to avoid acts or omissions that you can reasonably expect to harm your neighbour. Who is my neighbor legally? The answer seems to be – people who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I should reasonably consider them so affected when directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are being questioned. [3] ⇒ Lord Macmillan (majority): He said that legal action can arise from a tort, even if there is no contract between the parties involved.