(1) Duty - Negligence - Duty Introductory statements: 1. X...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Negligence - Duty Introductory statements: 1. X can sue Y for his negligence in ___ driving ____. 2. The issue is whether Y liable for negligence in driving to X? 3. Y is liable to X if the four elements of tort: duty; breach; causation; and remoteness are met. Elements: Explanation 1: For tort, if there is an established relationship between both parties, then it would suffice to cite the case which establishes this relationship. Eg. X, as a driver, owes Y a duty of care. Nettleship v. Weston. Explanation 2: If there is no established relationship, then duty needs to be shown by showing three elements. Duty To show a duty of care there must be: (1) foresight of plaintiff; (2) proximity between both parties; (3) fair, just and reasonable to impose duty. Caparo v. Dickman . Caparo Test: (1) Reasonable foreseeability: Rule: There is reasonable foreseeability where Y’s negligence would result in danger to a class of plaintiffs as disclosed to the eye of reasonable vigilance. Bourhill v Young ; Palsgraff v Long Island Railway Co Application to facts: Y could reasonably anticipate that his negligence__________ would cause ________ harm and X, being a __________ belongs to that class of plaintiffs. Therefore there is reasonable foreseeability.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
(2) Proximity: Rule: There is sufficient proximity where X is “so closely and directly affected” by Y’s actions. Donoghue v. Stevenson . Application to facts: The relationship between X and Y is sufficiently proximate because X and Y share a _______________ relationship. Therefore there is sufficient proximity. Building defects Economic loss stemming from defects in building design or construction are actionable because of the scale of the investment and greater expectation attached to a structure of permanence. There is sufficient proximity not only because there is reasonable foreseeability but also because there is reliance X on Y when Y undertook the responsibility to ____ the building. RSP v MCST Plan No 1075 (Eastern Lagoon case) Police investigation Because it was not known to Y that X would be Z’s next victim, there is a lack of proximity. Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Rescuers. There is insufficient proximity because the duty was owed to the public at large, Capital and Counties v Hants CC ,as opposed to undertaking a duty specifically to X as an individual in which there would be sufficient proximity. Kent v London Ambulance Service.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/07/2012 for the course LGST 101 taught by Professor Hsu during the Spring '11 term at Singapore Management.

Page1 / 5

(1) Duty - Negligence - Duty Introductory statements: 1. X...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online