Assignment Answers PDF For Remoteness Of The Damage LA2001

Tort Law
Tort Law
1
There are certain elements that make up every cause of action in tort, as there are in every
other type of lawsuit. 1These comp …

Preview text

Tort Law
Tort Law
1
There are certain elements that make up every cause of action in tort, as there are in every
other type of lawsuit. 1These components are frequently but not clearly differentiated from
one another. In the case of negligence, this is undoubtedly true because each of its
components is not self-contained. The factors of negligence are the duty of care, the violation
of duty, the causation of the damages, as well as the remoteness of the damage 2.
Unlike others, Denning L.J. went astep farther. According to him, the three elements of duty,
causation, and remoteness 3are inextricably linked in Roe vMinister of Health [1954] 2Q.B.
66, 86. 4 It appears that they are really three different approaches to the same
issue. Increasingly, itis recognised that the many elements of the tort of negligence combine,
but that they nevertheless have their distinct identities. Accordingly, it is not well known that
determining if the tort of negligence is being committed required an examination of each
element of the conduct seriatim to establish if it exists. In Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v
Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd .[1961] A.C. 388, 5In order to establish negligence, the
plaintiff must show that the defendants violated their obligations, breached that duty, and
caused damage as aresult, as per aPrivy Council judgement.”
The courts are quietly but steadily putting more pressure on the traditional differences
between the tort’s elements, undermining the classic concept of negligence as adistinctive
tort. As aresult of the Court of Appeal’s recent ruling in Darnley vCroydon Health Services
NHS Trust ,the conventional boundary between the duty of care as well as the breach parts of
negligence has been considerably eroded, as seen by this case. Situations formerly considered
breaches are now being considered as just duty cases because of this erosion in the legal
definition of the term. To put it another way, in contrast to the conventional form of the tort
of negligence, the breach part of the case is gradually being eradicated. 6
In Darnley, the claimant was attacked by unknown assailants and sustained anasty knock to
the head. In the hospital, a companion drove him to the receptionist, when the claimant
introduced himself. The receptionist informed the claimant that he would have to wait in the
waiting room for up to four or five hours before he could be seen. That was a
1Lecture 1: Introduction to Law of Torts, Slide 22 2Lecture 8: Negligence Factual Causation, Slide 3 3Lecture 9: Negligence Remoteness, Slide 4 4Lecture 8: Negligence Factual Causation, Slide 4 5Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. vMorts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd .[1961] A.C. 388 6Lecture 3: Breach of Duty, Slide 4
Tort Law
2
misrepresentation of the facts. The hospital’s triage protocol required a nurse to check the
patient within 30 minutes. After all was said and done, the triage nurse made the final call on
how quickly the claimant should be seen by adoctor. The claimant decided to leave after 19
minutes of waiting without being visited by anurse. Deteriorating health conditions led to the
claimant being rushed back to the hospital by ambulance. The claimant received surgery after
a scan showed that he or she required it urgently. The claimant, on the other hand, had
already been permanently harmed as aresult of the delay in his treatment. 7
According to the plaintiff, in adamages lawsuit, the respondent NHS trust conceded that if
the claimant had received treatment earlier, he would have fully recovered. The witnesses
said atriage nurse should have assessed the patient within 30 minutes of their arrival. But the
judge nonetheless ruled that the defendant’s office receptionists were not required to provide
correct wait time information, therefore the claimant’s case was set aside. By a2-1 vote, the
Court of Appeal ruled that there was no basis for an appeal. It was in a similar vein that
Darnley’s majority of judges focused on whether the defendant had any obligation to the
claimant. Considering that hospitals have aresponsibility to their patients, this emphasis was
unexpected. By going to the hospital’s emergency department, it was clear that the claimant
was a patient or someone who looked like a patient. No member of the Court of Appeal
appeared to disagree, and all Lords Justices referred to the claimant as a”patient.” As aresult,
Darnley is not a perfect illustration of a duty of care in the conventional sense. Instead,
correctly interpreted, the question was whether the defendant had broken its duty by
providing the claimant with false information, which was provided by its receptionist. 8
Darnley’s way of analysing is not unusual in this way. Judges often treat breach cases as if
they were duty cases because they go into too much detail about the duty of care part of the
case (another recent illustration is Southern vAdventure Forest Limited [2016] EWCA Civ
1178 9,at (31), wherein the court stated that an occupier will not owe a duty of care for
adanger in the premises). People who have gone before us often said things like, “No duty of
care was owed by the defendant in the current case to perform since areasonably competent
individual in defendant’s situation might not have performed.” The form of the statement, on
the other hand, quickly demonstrates that the duty of care aspect is not in play at any point.
7Kirsty Horsey and Erika Rackley, TORT LAW (7th edn, OXFORD UNIV PRESS 2021). 8Lecture 2: Negligence the duty of care basic principles, Slide 2 9Southern vAdventure Forest Limited [2016] EWCA Civ 1178
Tort Law
3
Due to this discussion, it may be inferred that the court is truly debating whether or not the
defendant’s behaviour was satisfactory, which is the only aspect of anegligence case dealing
with whether or not their conduct was acceptable. A reasonable person in defendant’s position
would have done a variety of things, regardless of whether or not a judge was asked to
evaluate duty. That Darnley was primarily acase of failure to do one’s duties is illustrated
here.
Darnley might have been analysed in the following ways, according to recognised doctrine.
There should have been no room for doubt that the defendant owed the claimant aduty of
care. This is due to the fact that Darnley was absolutely devoid of any characteristics that
may be construed as constituting a basis for a duty claim. The parties fell under the
jurisdiction of apre-established obligation category. Personal injury was the type of damage
complained of, rather than, for example, pure mental or economic pain. 10 There was also no
hint that Darnely’s actions were the result of a simple omission. Therefore, and in a clear
manner, it follows that the claimant owes a duty of reasonable care. In Darnley, the only
question that was important was whether or not the defendant had broken its obligation. In
the absence of adecision on whether the duty of care element may be allowed to cannibalise
other components of the case in negligence, it is evident that this process should not be
carried out secretly and other than at the final appeal level. 11
In conclusion, itcan be stated that breach of duty as an element is not disappearing. The only
thing that the courts rely on is to establish the duty for upholding aclaim of negligence. Even
though this can be difficult to establish and the other elements are given more weightage, it
cannot be denied that showing breach of such duty remains central to upholding acase of
negligence.
10Lecture 6: Negligence pure economic loss, Slide 2 11James Goudkamp, ‘The End Of An Era? Illegality In Private Law In The Supreme Court’ (Papers.ssrn.com ,
2017) accessed 8May 2022.
Tort Law
4
Bibliography
Goudkamp J, ‘The End Of An Era? Illegality In Private Law In The Supreme Court’
(Papers.ssrn.com , 2017)
accessed 8May 2022
Horsey K, and Rackley E, TORT LAW (7th edn, OXFORD UNIV PRESS 2021)
James Goudkamp, ‘The End Of An Era? Illegality In Private Law In The Supreme Court’
(Papers.ssrn.com , 2017)
accessed 8May 2022.
Kirsty Horsey and Erika Rackley, TORT LAW (7th edn, OXFORD UNIV PRESS 2021).
Lecture 1: Introduction to Law of Torts, Slide 22
Lecture 2: Negligence the duty of care basic principles, Slide 2
Lecture 3: Breach of Duty, Slide 4
Lecture 6: Negligence pure economic loss, Slide 2
Lecture 8: Negligence Factual Causation, Slide 3
Lecture 8: Negligence Factual Causation, Slide 4
Lecture 9: Negligence Remoteness, Slide 4
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. vMorts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd .[1961] A.C. 388
Southern vAdventure Forest Limited [2016] EWCA Civ 1178

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.