In English law, there is no duty of the courts to impose liability for an omission or failure to act, despite the fact that there are compelling moral judgments for prevention of harm to another. The tort of negligence signifies that a person who causes damage by carelessness to others may be held liable to pay compensation. Thus, the exclusionary rule operates to preclude a duty being owed in respect of omissions containing three exceptions. The three exceptions operate when the defendant has assumed responsibility or where the defendant exercises a high degree of control over the claimant or creating and adopting risks. The focal exception this essay emphasises is the assumption of responsibility. This is when it can be said that the defendant has assumed responsibility for the claimant’s wellbeing and safety. In pursuance of determining whether the assumption of responsibility is unfair as regards to liability for omissions in the tort of negligence; the essay will firstly examine the obligations set out through the Caparo test in order to arbitrate one 's liability. Additionally, this essay will critically analyse the branches of assumption of responsibility. The branches consist of special relationships, actions and third parties. Furthermore, it is also imperative to speculate assumption of responsibility as regards to public authorities. Nevertheless, the theories, (deterrence, corrective justice and distributive justice) will be used to perlustrate whether or not the ass...
... middle of paper ...
...nconscious on the Norwegian Naval base and was not found, no duty of care would have arisen and the deceased would have been at fault. Thus, the defendant ordering the pilot to be taken to his bedroom was out of good will and did not assume a duty of care. On the contrary, if we determine Stansbie v Troman, the assumption of responsibility was created out of the contractual relationship, of which not securing the house, the defendants intervention was a breach of this responsibility. Hence, the intervention of the defendant moving the deceased in Barrett created the responsibility; not requesting medical assistance led to the omission. Overall, Epstein’s argument is preferred, that imposing liability for failure to act upon the responsibility which was voluntarily accepted is fair and just, as it deters people from failing to implement their responsibility.
Need Writing Help?
Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.Check your paper »
- - The parties involved are Jonathan and the Ambulance Service. The claimants involved are; Albert, George and Victor in question. Jonathan v Albert and George The claimants are Albert and George, which will be suing Jonathan in the tort of negligence for personal injury/damages. A tort in law is a civil wrong which causes unfair harm. The requirements for tort of negligence was stated by Lord Wright in Lochgelly v McMullan . Negligence is considered as a breach of a legal duty to take care, with the result that the damage is caused to the claimant .... [tags: Tort, Duty of care, Negligence]
996 words (2.8 pages)
- With the increase in demand for references amongst employers, the obligation of providing references for former/past employees has been a controversial subject. References are used to assess the work ethic, performance and experience of an applicant. Although this information is compulsory when applying for certain jobs, there are some cases were employers are not liable to provide this information. With the employers owing a common law duty of care to its employees, this paper will provide a critical evaluation for the liability of employers providing references for their former/past employees in relation to the tort of negligence.... [tags: Tort, Negligence, Employment, Law]
728 words (2.1 pages)
- 1. What is the definition of an "ex post facto" law and why are they unfair. Ex post facto is a law that retroactively changes the lawful results of activities that were conferred, or connections that existed, before the authorization of the law. It is out of line since it might criminalize activities that were lawful when perpetrated; it might exasperate a wrongdoing by bringing it into a more extreme class than it was in when it was carried out; it might change the discipline recommended for a wrongdoing, as by including new punishments or broadening sentences; or it might modify the tenets of confirmation so as to make conviction for a wrongdoing likelier than it would have been the poin... [tags: Criminal law, Law, Common law, Crime]
1434 words (4.1 pages)
- Disadvantages of legislation The fate of environmental litigation in Budden v BP Oil and Shell Oil (1980) 124 SJ 376 amply demonstrates the inherent difficulties of actions in nuisance and negligence for damage suffered as a result of environmental harm. The plaintiff claimed damages, alleging nuisance and negligence, for harm alleged to have been suffered as a result of lead pollution caused by emissions from petrol during the refining process. The defendants applied to have the action struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.... [tags: Tort, Law, Common law, Negligence]
739 words (2.1 pages)
- Tort of negligence QUESTION 1 ISSUE: Will Kim be successful in suing the Ipswich council. RULE: Under tort of negligence, in order to be successful, claim must require the following properties as per Law in Commerce (5th edition) Sweeney, B., O’Reilly, J. and Coleman, A. PRIVITY OF CONTRACT: According to law, suit can only be filed by the contracting parties. Third party (i.e. party not a part of contract) cannot file a suit except in certain specified situations such as in case of principal agency relationship.... [tags: Tort, Law, Negligence, Contract]
1327 words (3.8 pages)
- In this essay we are able to identify the Law of tort and present a case from New Zealand covering tort of negligence and vicarious liability. The word ‘tort’ is derived from the Latin term tortem to twist and implies conduct which is twisted or tortious. It now means a breach of some duty independent of contract giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which compensation is recoverable. A Tort is a species of civil injury or wrong no civil injury is to be classed as a tort unless the appropriate remedy for it is an action for damages.... [tags: Tort, Tort law, Negligence, Strict liability]
909 words (2.6 pages)
- Deceit is purposeful lying that causes a loss for the claimant or gain for the defendant. Conversely, a negligent misstatement is an incorrect, careless statement that causes loss for the claimant, in which the defendant acts on unreasonable grounds. In order to establish a negligent misstatement, the misstatement must fulfil the requirements for negligence. The tort of negligence involves three components: duty of care, breach of duty, and damages. Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) is the origin of the tort of negligence in modern English law.... [tags: Tort, Tort law, Duty of care, Negligence]
1201 words (3.4 pages)
- Issue To determine based on the case facts, if Alma can sue Norma for negligence based on tort law or not. Rule To establish negligence, it is imperative that three main conditions are to be satisfied. Firstly, it needs to be proved that the defendant had a duty to care directed towards the plaintiff. Secondly, there needs to be a breach of this duty due to the negligent conduct of the defendant. Thirdly, the plaintiff should have suffered harm due to the duty to care being breached by the defendant (Lindgren, 2011).... [tags: Negligence, Tort, Tort law, Duty of care]
1035 words (3 pages)
- “The categories of negligence are never closed”. [Lord Macmillan in Donoghue v. Stevenson- (1932)] The tort of negligence is a relatively recent phenomenon, which has come to become the most dynamic and rapidly changing areas of liability in modern law. Lord Macmillan’s assertion that “ the categories of negligence are never closed” suggests how courts possess the power to expand the area of liability by bringing in new duty situations as a result of new set of facts coming is everyday.... [tags: Tort Law]
876 words (2.5 pages)
- There are three elements that must be present for an act or omission to be negligent; (1) The defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff; (2) The defendant breached the duty of care by an act or omission; (3) The plaintiff must suffer damage as a result - be it physical, emotional or financial. The court might decide that Freddy (the plaintiff) was owed a duty of care by Elvis (the defendant) if they find that what happened to Freddy was in the realm of reasonable forseeability - any harm that could be caused to a 'neighbour' by Elvis' actions that he could reasonably have expected to happen.... [tags: Tort Law]
1121 words (3.2 pages)