Tortuous liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by law; this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages.”

For this edition, the entire text has been thoroughly updated and several chapters have been extensively rewritten. Thirdly, the courts will consider the seriousness of harm as sometimes, the risk of harm may be low but this will be counter-balanced by the gravity of harm to a particularly vulnerable claimant. See, for example , Paris v Stepney Borough CouncilNegligence is the omission to do something, which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or do something, which a prudent and reasonable man would not do”. DUTY TO TAKE CARE: One of the essential conditions of liability for negligence is that the defendant owed a legal duty towards the plaintiff. The following case laws will throw some light upon this essential element. Lastly, the courts will consider the social importance of risky activity. If the defendant’s actions served a socially useful purpose then he may have been justified in taking greater risks as seen in Watt v Hertfordshire County Council. In Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co., (1856) LR 11 Exch. 781; ALDERSON, B. defined negligence as, negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man…….. would do, or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do. A new section on damage in the law of negligence, incorporating discussion of Dryden v Johnson Matthey

urn:lcp:winfieldjolowicz0000roge:epub:74a92870-5cc4-4fa9-8129-d6e8f6c77b88 Foldoutcount 0 Grant_report Arcadia #4281 Identifier winfieldjolowicz0000roge Identifier-ark ark:/13960/t44r8mz74 Invoice 2089 Isbn 0421768509 M.N. Shukla, The Law of Torts and Consumer Protection Act, 18th Edition 2010; Published by Central Law Agency, Allahabad. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question”. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sushila Devi, AIR 1999 SC 1929; a person passing by the road died because of fall of branch of a tree standing on the road, on his head. The Municipal Corporation was held liable. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: It was the Common law rule that anyone who by his own negligence contributed to the injury of which he complains cannot maintain an action against another in respect of it. Because, he will be considered in law to be author of his wrong.

Help

DUTY TO WHOM: Donoghue v. Stevenson, 1932 AC 562 carried the idea further and expanded the scope of duty saying that the duty so raised extends to your neighbour. Explaining so as to who is my neighbour LORD ATKIN said that the answer must be “the persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question”. In Lochgelly Iron & Coal Co. v. Mc Mullan, 1934 AC 1; LORD WRIGHT said, negligence means more than headless or careless conduct, whether in commission or omission; it properly connotes the complex concept of duty, breach and damage thereby suffered by the person to whom the duty was owing. Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort has been the leading work on the subject since the first edition was published over 80 years ago, and with the publication of this twentieth edition it continues to be a clear, authoritative and comprehensive guide to this area of law. It is widely adopted for use by students, an invaluable resource for practitioners, and regarded in other legal systems as providing a definitive account of the English law of tort. Thirdly, whether in all circumstances it would be fair, just and reasonable for the law to impose such a duty of care. It was held not to be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on the police in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. However, a duty was imposed on the fire brigade in Capital and Counties plc v Hampshire County Council. ACT OF GOD OR VIS MAJOR: It is such a direct, violent, sudden and irresistible act of nature as could not, by any amount of human foresight have been foreseen or if foreseen, could not by any amount of human care and skill, have been resisted. Such as, storm, extraordinary fall of rain, extraordinary high tide, earth quake etc.

This edition has been updated to incorporate the developments that have taken place in the law of tort. Although centred in English law, significant case law developments in other major Commonwealth jurisdictions are also considered The second factor the courts will take into account to establish negligence is breach of duty. This is commonly known as the ‘reasonable man’ test, and simply asks whether the defendant has done something a reasonable person would not have done, or failed to do something that a reasonable person would not have. Baron Alderson in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co said: I. MEANING: In everyday usage, the word ‘negligence’ denotes mere carelessness. In legal sense it signifies failure to exercise standard of care which the doer as a reasonable man should have exercised in the circumstances. In general, there is a legal duty to take care when it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to do so was likely to cause injury. Negligence is a mode in which many kinds of harms may be caused by not taking such adequate precautions.Discussion of hundreds of recent cases, including Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales, Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Poole BC v GN (duty of care); Patel v Mirza (illegality); Wilkes v DePuy International (product liability); Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (defamation); O v Rhodes (intentional infliction of physical or emotional harm); Willers v Joyce (malicious prosecution); JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov (No.14) (conspiracy); and five major Supreme Court decisions on vicarious liability and non-delegable duties, including Barclays Bank v Various Claimants and WM Morrison Supermarkets v Various Claimants

In Brown v. Kendal, (1859) 6 Cussing 292; the plaintiff’s and defendant’s dogs were fighting, while the defendant was trying to separate them, he accidentally hit the plaintiff in his eye who was standing nearby. The injury to the plaintiff was held to be result of inevitable accident and the defendant was not liable. In Stanley v. Powell, (1891) 1 QB 86; the plaintiff and the defendant, who were members of a shooting party, went for pheasant shooting. The defendant fired at a pheasant, but the shot from his gun glanced off an oak tree and injured the plaintiff. It was held that the accident was an inevitable accident and the defendant was not liable. In laymen’s terms, tort is a civil wrong or breach of a duty to another person on which courts, based on fault, impose liability and it is mainly concerned with providing compensation for personal injury and property damage caused by negligence. BREACH OF DUTY TO TAKE CARE: Yet another essential condition for the liability in negligence is that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant committed a breach of duty to take care or he failed to perform that duty.Discussion of hundreds of recent cases, including Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales , Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Poole BC v GN (duty of care); Patel v Mirza (illegality); Wilkes v DePuy International (product liability); Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (defamation); O v Rhodes (intentional infliction of physical or emotional harm); Willers v Joyce (malicious prosecution); JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov (No.14) (conspiracy); and five major Supreme Court decisions on vicarious liability and non-delegable duties, including Barclays Bank v Various Claimants and WM Morrison Supermarkets v Various Claimants Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, 24th Edition 1997 Reprint 2002; Published by Wadhwa and Company, Nagpur, India. Dr. S.K. Kapoor, Law of Torts and Consumer Protection Act, 6th Edition 2003; Published by Central Law Agency, Allahabad.