Negligence Duty Of Care

Negligence means ignorance or failure of one to fully comply and perform his role which eventually causes losses to one another. This loss may include economic loss, property damage, personal or psychiatric injury. In order to success in a negligence claim, the claimant is required to prove three key elements – duty of care, breach of duty of care, and damages (Corporation n.d.).

Duty of care can be defined as the relationships recognized by law where one has the legal duty of taking care another. Failure in doing so could result in that the defendant is liable of paying damages towards the party at loss as a result of breach of duty of care (Negligence - duty of care n.d.). To establish duty of care, the existence of standard affair is required

(LLP n.d.). In order to determine whether the defendant had provided sufficient effort or is in breach of duty, four factors were considered together – foreseen of harm, its seriousness, cost of prevention and utility of the defendant’s conduct (Breach of duty n.d.). First, events that are unlikely to happen are not guardable. In case Roe v Minister of Health [1954] 2 WLR 915, two claimants were paralysed permanently due to contaminated anaesthetic given during surgery. The contamination occurred during storage and for the first time hence, the storing procedure used were as usual. No breach of duty occur in this case as the risk was not foreseeable during the given timeline. Another case Haley v London Electricity Board [1965] AC 778, some workmen had dig a trench and they made precaution for what they thought was necessary and went for lunch. During the time, a blind man accidentally fall off and become deaf. The defendant was held to be in breach of duty as it was foreseeable that a blind person may walk down the street hence proper procedure should be

The defendants were found guilty in breach of duty despite the low likelihood of harm, but the seriousness of harm is extremely high and could have been prevent at zero cost. In another case, Paris v Stepney [1951] AC 367 House of Lords, a single eyed worker becomes blind due to an accident at work as a garage hand. Safety goggles were not provided by the employer despite there isn’t any standard practice as the claimant would suffer huge loss in compared with any other workers with sight of both eyes. It is held that the duty is owed towards the particular person instead of class of persons of reasonable labours. In terms of cost of prevention, the case Latimer v AEC [1953] AC 643 House of Lords shows no breach of duty. The claimant was working and accidently slip on the factory floor due to previous flood. The defendant had put up warning signs, mopped and placed sawdust at specific areas to minimize the risk. It is held that there is no need for eliminating risk at higher expenses hence no obligation for closure of factory. Lastly, in case Watt v Hertfordshire [1954] 1 WLR 835 shows the weight of utility of defendant’s conduct. Claimant as a fireman were on mission to save a woman trapped underneath a lorry in a traffic accident. Claimant and several