LAW OF TORTS

Assignment
Examine how the concept of duty of care has changed and entitled in the English
legal system with the help of various case law
INTRODUCTION
A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss
or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. tort law,
a duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring
adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could
foreseeably harm others. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with
an action in negligence.

Negligence
Negligent tort means a tort committed by failure to act as a reasonable person to
someone to whom s/he owes a duty, as required by law under the circumstances.
Further, negligent torts are not deliberate, and there must be an injury resulting from the
breach of the duty.

Elements of negligence
 Duty of care
 Breach of duty
 Causation
 Special relationship
 Standard of care

Duty of care
A duty of care is the legal responsibility of a person or organization to avoid any
behaviors or omissions that could reasonably be foreseen to cause harm to others. For
example, a duty of care is owed by an accountant in correctly preparing a customer’s
tax returns, to minimize the chance of an IRS audit. Similarly, manufacturers owe a duty
of care to consumers in making sure that their products are safe for public use. Because
each of the states is free to develop its own duty of care laws, there are several different
tests to determine whether someone has a duty of care under U.S. tort law. Under
certain states’ duty of care laws, such as Florida and Massachusetts, the only test is
whether the harm that the defendant’s actions caused could have been predicted by
another reasonable person in the same circumstance. California’s duty of care law
provides of one of the more complex tests in the nation, which carefully balances
certain factors to determine whether a duty of care existed in a negligence action.
Some of these factors include:
 The foreseeability of harm to the injured party
 The degree to which the injured party suffered
 The closeness of the connection between the defendant’s behavior and the
plaintiff’s injury or other damages
 The availability, cost, and commonness of insurance for the risks that were involved

Principles of duty of care

 Neighborhood principle
 Anns tesr
 Caparo test

Neighborhood principle
Neighbor principle is a principle of English law which says that a person should take
reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that s/he can reasonably foresee as likely to
cause injury to the neighbor. Neighbor includes all persons who are so closely and
directly affected by the act that the actor should reasonably think of them when
engaging in the act or omission in question. The standard was set by Lord Atkins in the
famous English case Donoghue v Stevenson. The neighbor principle is based on the
Christian principle of "loving your neighbor. One of the most important case according to
this principle which brought a change in tort related to this is Donoughe vs Stevenson

Case : Donoughe vs Stevenson

Also known as the "Paisley snail” or "snail in the bottle" case, the case involved Mrs
Donoghue drinking a bottle of ginger beer in a café in Paisley, Renfrewshire. A dead
snail was in the bottle. She fell ill, and she sued the ginger beer manufacturer, Mr
Stevenson. The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to her,
which was breached, because it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to ensure the
product's safety would lead to harm to consumers. There was also a sufficiently
proximate relationship between consumers and product manufacturers.
Prior to Donoghue v Stevenson, liability for personal injury in tort usually depended
upon showing physical damage inflicted directly (trespass to the person) or indirectly
(trespass on the case). Being made ill by consuming a noxious substance did not
qualify as either, so the orthodox view was that Mrs Donoghue had no sustainable claim
in law. However, the decision fundamentally created a new type of liability in law which
did not depend upon any previously recognized category of tortious claims. This was an
evolutionary step in the common law for tort and delict, moving from strict liability based
upon direct physical contact to a fault-based system which only required injury. This
evolution was taken further in the later decision of Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232
when it was held that actions should not be jointly pleaded in trespass and negligence,
but in negligence alone.
Caparos test
Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman 1990 is a leading English tort law case on the
test for a duty of care. The House of Lords, following the Court of Appeal, set out
a "three-fold test". In order, for a duty of care to arise in negligence:

 harm must be reasonably foreseeable as a result of the defendant's conduct (as

established in Donoghue v Stevenson),
 the parties must be in a relationship of proximity, and
 it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability

The decision arose in the context of a negligent preparation of accounts for a company.
Previous cases on negligent misstatements had fallen under the principle of Hedley
Bryne v Heller. This stated that when a person makes a statement, he voluntarily
assumes responsibility to the person he makes it to (or those who were in his
contemplation). If the statement was made negligently, then he will be liable for any loss
which results. The question in Caparo was the scope of the assumption of
responsibility, and what the limits of liability ought to be.

On a preliminary issue as to whether a duty of care existed in the circumstances as

alleged by the plaintiff, the plaintiff was unsuccessful at first instance but was successful
in the Court of Appeal in establishing a duty of care might exist in the circumstances. Sir
Thomas Bingham MR held that as a small shareholder, Caparo was entitled to rely on
the accounts. Had Caparo been a simple outside investor, with no stake in the
company, it would have had no claim. But because the auditors' work is primarily
intended to be for the benefit of the shareholders, and Caparo did in fact have a small
stake when it saw the company accounts, its claim was good. This was overturned by
the House of Lords, which unanimously held there was no duty of care.

Anns test
Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1977] UKHL 4, [1978] AC 728 was a
judicial decision of the supreme court at its date, the Judicial Committee of the House of
Lords It established a broad test for determining the existence of a duty of care in the
tort of negligence called the Anns test or sometimes the two-stage test for true third-
party negligence. This case was overruled by Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991].

Case:
1962 the local council of Merton approved building plans for the erection of a block of
maisonettes. The approved plans showed the base wall and concrete foundations of the
block to be ‘three feet or deeper to the approval of local authority [being Merton]’. The
notice of approval said that the bylaws of the council required that notice should be
given to the council both at the commencement of the work and when the foundations
were ready to be covered by the rest of the building work. The council had the power to
inspect the foundations and require any corrections necessary to bring the work into
conformity with the bylaws,but was not under an obligation to do so.
The block of maisonettes was finished in 1962. The builder (who was also the owner)
granted 999-year leases for the maisonettes, the last conveyance taking place in 1965.
In 1970 structural movements occurred resulting in failure of the building comprising
cracks in the wall, sloping of the floors and other defects. In 1972 the plaintiffs who were
lessees of the maisonettes issued writs against the builder and the council. The
plaintiffs claimed that the damage was a consequence of the block having been built on
inadequate foundations, there being a depth of two feet six inches only as against the
three feet or deeper shown on the plans and required under the bylaws. The plaintiffs
claimed damages in negligence against the council for approving the foundations and/or
in failing to inspect the foundations. At the hearing at first instance the plaintiffs' case
failed on the basis that it was statute barred as the cause of action arose on the first
sale of a maisonette by the owner, more than six years before an action was
commenced. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals on the basis that the cause of
action arose when the damage was discovered or ought to have been discovered.The
Court found in favour of the tenants

Case opinion
Established the two-stage Anns test whether a duty of care existed which requires: a
‘sufficient relationship of proximity based upon foreseeability’ between plaintiff and
defendant; and considerations of reasons that there should not be a duty of care.

Conclusion
The concept of duty of care has changed after Verdicts of various cases.A person owes
duty of care to others and any harm or damage to others can cause them trouble
Neglicence in duty is now a very major term. breach of duty occurs when one person or
company has a duty of care toward another person or company, but fails to live up to
that standard. A person may be liable for negligence in a personal injury
case if his breach of duty caused another person's injuries. In tort law, a duty of care is
a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard
of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others