Search icone
Search and publish your papers

Breach of duty of care/ negligence in tort law: Mr J Madisson in Caparo v Dickman

Or download with : a doc exchange

About the author

Level
General public

About the document

Published date
Language
documents in English
Format
Word
Type
law case
Pages
4 pages
Level
General public
Accessed
1 times
Validated by
Committee Oboolo.com
0 Comment
Rate this document
  1. The requirement in order for a claim for negligence
  2. The cases are X and another v Hounslow London Borough Council
  3. The elements missing in the demonstration

The tort of negligence is one of the most important fields of tort law in modernized law. When a claimant suffers from an act or an omission on behalf of a third party, innumerable ways and means are proposed to impose liability on the defendant. It is essential and necessary for the claimant to prove that the defendant was at fault. Negligence at tort is a faulty parameter considering the reason or cause for the liability to arise. In order to enable the action on the claim for negligence, the claimant is expected to fill three requirements. In the first situation, a duty of care arises from the particular situation wherein, he/she was at the time of the incident, encountered a breach of that duty, and thereafter he/she suffered damages caused by the breach of duty which in this situation was not too remote. The imposition of negligence liability is a complex matter to be fulfilled in judging new cases. This fulfillment is vital when judges are dealing with novel cases where some of the circumstances can cause problems in terms of interpretation.

[...] He first noticed that courts may be prepared to find that a duty of care exists more readily in cases involving injury or damage to person or property than in those involving only economic loss? as stated in Caparo v Dickman Secondly, Secondly that it is ?important if not determinate factors in deciding whether or not a duty of care exists may be the assumption by the defendant concerned of responsibility toward the claimant concerned? as said in Hedley Byrne v. [...]


[...] In our case, is X and another v Hounslow London Borough Council[7] , Madisson J held that there were several elements that confirmed the proximate relationship between the claimants and the defendant: first, the Defendant was the Claimants' landlord, moreover the Defendant was well aware of the Claimants' disabilities and had provided social services and support for them from 1995 to 2000 and at last, the Defendant had visited their home in 2000. We can conclude from those elements that there was a close enough relationship between the two parties that could amount to proximity. [...]

Top sold for civil law

Struggles for Recognition in the Democratic Constitutional State, Jurgen Habermas

 Law & contracts   |  Civil   |  Book review   |  09/29/2010   |   .doc   |   3 pages

Recent documents in civil law category

Reform Act 1832

 Law & contracts   |  Civil   |  Presentation   |  11/10/2015   |   .doc   |   1 page

Europe vs America - different approaches to privacy

 Law & contracts   |  Civil   |  Presentation   |  09/09/2015   |   .doc   |   5 pages