• THE DUTY OF CARE
• Negligence emerges in early 19th century
• Be a concept of strict liability
• Was not named negligent however in the cases there
was a recognised misconduct of acts or omissions –
words didn’t come into as negligent misstatements were
much more recent.
• Legal liability emerged in 1800s. “anyone who
undertakes any office, employment, trust or DUTY
contracts with those who employ or entrust him to
perform it with integrity, diligence and skill’’ >
• Focus on employes and employees. The duty was
orginially based on skill. Where one person contracted
with another they had a duty to carry out a certain level
or standard of performance expected of them.
• 1825 – industrialisation emerges – railways appear etc
and negligence Is on the rise
• Recognised as a separate area of wrong doing in the
1840s.
• INADVERTENT – no malicious intent – that is fraudulent
rather than negligent.
• Establishing negligence isn’t automatic bar to recovery –
criteria has got to be met.
• LEVEL of negligence irrelevant and damages aren’t
directly proportional to degree of negligence.
, Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks 1856
early days where we see the ‘reasonable man’ being
used. Says that a tort is committed a reasonable man
fails to do something ‘guided upon those considerations’
which operate in the life of a normal person. OR does
something that a reasonable man would not do. Simple
and easy. Gets to the point.
However this means that everyone is liable to the world
at large.
Heaven v Pender 1883
The issue of duty arose earlier in the 1800s when it was
recognised that no one is liable to anyone unless there is
a duty of care between them. This case lay down a
proper ‘doctrinal basis’ for duty.
- when a person is placed in situation where they are
forced to have regard to another, they owe a duty which
is determined by asking if the ordinary man would
recognise that if he did not use ORDINARY CARE AND
SKILL – he would cause injury or damage to that other
person.
Here, a duty arises merely because you have another
person in your contemplation however it is not an
INCREASED standard of care or skill that you must apply
but I suppose it just saying that a consciousness of your
application of such care should surface.
• Negligence emerges in early 19th century
• Be a concept of strict liability
• Was not named negligent however in the cases there
was a recognised misconduct of acts or omissions –
words didn’t come into as negligent misstatements were
much more recent.
• Legal liability emerged in 1800s. “anyone who
undertakes any office, employment, trust or DUTY
contracts with those who employ or entrust him to
perform it with integrity, diligence and skill’’ >
• Focus on employes and employees. The duty was
orginially based on skill. Where one person contracted
with another they had a duty to carry out a certain level
or standard of performance expected of them.
• 1825 – industrialisation emerges – railways appear etc
and negligence Is on the rise
• Recognised as a separate area of wrong doing in the
1840s.
• INADVERTENT – no malicious intent – that is fraudulent
rather than negligent.
• Establishing negligence isn’t automatic bar to recovery –
criteria has got to be met.
• LEVEL of negligence irrelevant and damages aren’t
directly proportional to degree of negligence.
, Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks 1856
early days where we see the ‘reasonable man’ being
used. Says that a tort is committed a reasonable man
fails to do something ‘guided upon those considerations’
which operate in the life of a normal person. OR does
something that a reasonable man would not do. Simple
and easy. Gets to the point.
However this means that everyone is liable to the world
at large.
Heaven v Pender 1883
The issue of duty arose earlier in the 1800s when it was
recognised that no one is liable to anyone unless there is
a duty of care between them. This case lay down a
proper ‘doctrinal basis’ for duty.
- when a person is placed in situation where they are
forced to have regard to another, they owe a duty which
is determined by asking if the ordinary man would
recognise that if he did not use ORDINARY CARE AND
SKILL – he would cause injury or damage to that other
person.
Here, a duty arises merely because you have another
person in your contemplation however it is not an
INCREASED standard of care or skill that you must apply
but I suppose it just saying that a consciousness of your
application of such care should surface.
