Tort of NegligenceIn this case, can _____ (P) sue _____ (D) under the tort of negligence and claim for damages. For the tort of negligence to arise, 3 elements must be satisfied. (1) Duty of care owed by the (D) to the (P). (2) (D) breached the duty of care. (3) Harm, damage or loss suffered by the (P) that arise from the causal relationship by the defendant’s breach of duty. (4) The damage, harm or loss suffered should also not be too remote.1. Duty of care The first legal issue is to determine if ____(D) owed ____(P) a duty of care. Applying the case ofSpandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v DSTA (2007), there are 3 elements to be fulfilled in establishing theduty of care:[SPANDECK TEST] (1) The threshold test of factual foreseeability, it was foreseeable that the defendant’s actions oromissions could cause damage to the plaintiff and the test would always satisfied in every case.In this case, it was factually foreseeable that _______.(2) Relationship of ProximityTo establish this requirement, there must firstly have been an assumption of responsibility by thedefendants to act with reasonable care and the plaintiff must have reasonably relied or dependedon the defendant’s actions and the defendants knew or ought to have known this. Applying to the facts of this case, ______. 1.Physical proximity in the sense of space and time between the person or property ofthe ____(P) and ____(D).2.Circumstantial proximity such as an overriding r/s of employer/employee or ofprofessional/client. -According to the case ofCaparo Industries Ltd v Dickman (1990): Court held there was aneed to determine if a close relationship exists between the parties. It exists if:The defendant knew or ought to have known the purposefor which thestatement/advice was requiredThat the statement will be communicated to the adviseeThat the advisee is likely to act upon it for that purpose without independent inquiryIt was so acted upon to the advisee’s detrimentIt was reasonable for the advisee to so rely on the statement[Special Relationship]According to the case ofHedley Byrne v Heller (1964): The court heldthat a duty of care arises if there is a “special relationship” founded on:The skill & expertise of the statement makerThe maker knows/ought to know the other person will rely on the statementDefendant’s voluntary assumption of responsibility3.Causal proximity such as closeness or directness of the causal connection orrelationship between the act and conduct and the loss or injury sustained.
4.Voluntary assumption and reliance also fulfill the proximity element 1.It may reflect an assumption of responsibilityby ____(D) to take care to avoid or prevent injury/loss/damage to ____(P) person/property or 2.Relianceby ____(P) upon such care being taken by ____(D) in circumstances where ____(D) (ought to) know of ____(P’s) reliance.