Tort of Negligence - created from Mind Map

Tort is used to protect those who do not have a contract

1. Defendant owes plaintiff a duty of care "Neighbourhood Principle" in Donohuge v Stevenson (1932) Ann's 2-Stage Test in Anns v Merton London Borough Council (1978) Caparo's 3-Stage Test in Caparo Industries Ltd v Dickman (1990) Singapore's Position (2007) Acts that can reasonably foresee as likely to injure those who are so closely and affected by my act 1. Acts that can reasonably foresee as likely to injure those who are so closely and affected by my act 2. Are there policy considerations that would negate, reduce, limit the scope of duty or damages 1. Foreseeability of damage (most impt to give rise to duty of care) 2. Relationship of proximity 3. Is it just, fair and reasonable to impose duty: Indeterminate liability for indeteminate time for an indeterminate class The more foreseeable the harm, the more likely the courts will find "proximity", the more likely court considerations, and the call for justice and reasonableness will call for imposition of duty of care Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd vs Defence Science & Technology Agency (2007) To determine if officer owed contractor a duty of care Preliminary requirement: Factual forseeability: 1. Proximity: Physical, circumstantial, causal proximity such that it is REASONABLE TO FRESEE my act or omission will harm 2. Are there considerations or policies that will negative or limit the duty? Policy involve balancing the moral claims and social welfare goals 1 and 2 should be applied INCREMENTALLY, referring to decided cases in analogous situations, balancing between fairness and possible policy considerations against indeterminate liability Prima facie duty of care

2. Defendant breached his duty of care Reasonable Standard of Care 1. Level of skill 2.. Likelihood of harm 3. Seriousness of Harm 4. Cost of Avoiding Go Dante Yap v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG (2011) Low: Bolton v Stone (1951) High: Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951) Wagon Mound (No 2) (1967): High cost, low risk: examine if cost justifies the marginal increase in safety High cost and high risk: Necessary Low cost and low risk: Maybe

3. Plaintiff suffered loss and damage from the breach "But for"test: Causal link between negligence and damage OR Legal Causation Egg-shell Skull Rule: TV Media v De Cruz Andrea Heidi (2004) Would plaintiff have suffered from harm if defendant had not been negligent? Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital (1969) Yeo Peng Hock Henry v Pai Lily (2001) Are the losses too remote? Use the reasonable foreseeability test

Damage caused by Negligent Act/Statement Physical Damage/ Injury PURE Economic Loss Nervous Shock Consequential Economic Loss RECOVERABLE, DOES NOT LEAD TO INDETERMINATE LIABILITY + REASONABLE FORSEEABILITY Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) Caused by Negligent Misstatement Caused by Negligent Act/Omission Usually duty of care owed if there is a "special relationship" Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964) Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990) 1. Depends on the skill and expertise of the maker of statement 2. Whether maker of S knows the other person will rely on it 3. Whether the maker of S voluntarily assumes responsibility 1. Forseeability of harm 2. Proximity of R/s between parties 3. Whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose duty of care RSP Architects Planners & Engineers v Ocean Front Pte Ltd Prima Facie if 1. Forseeable 2. Proxmity 3. Whether am I imposing liability for indeterminate amount of time, class, amount McLoughlin v Brian (1983) Ngiam Kong Seng v Lim Chiew Hock (2008) The closer the tie, greater claim for consideration 1. Closeness or r/s including circumstantial proximity 2. Proximity of plaintiff to accident in time and space (Physical Prox) 3. Causal Proximity

Res ipsa loquitur If D was in control, and accident can only arise out of negligence of D = D has to prove he was NOT negligent Scott v London & St Katherine Docks Co (1865)

Defence Complete: Volenti non fit injuria Partial: S 3(1) of the Contributory Negligence & Personal Injuries Act Exemption of liability clause: Incorporation, construction and UCTA FULL and VOLUNTARY consent with FULL KNOWLEGE of RISKS of NEGLIGENCE

Tort of Negligence