Preview

Negligence, Psychiatric Loss, Economical Loss & Occupiers Liability

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
2419 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Negligence, Psychiatric Loss, Economical Loss & Occupiers Liability
In this leaflet I will describe the law of negligence and occupier’s liability, economic loss and psychiatric loss.

Negligence is when somebody has a duty of care and that duty is breached. Negligence is split into 3 parts.

Duty of Care
In certain situations, a duty of care is owed to another person. For example, a surgeon owes a duty of care to whoever they operate on. The existence of a duty of care is established by the Neighbour Test which was brought in by Lord Aitken after the Donoghue v Stevenson case;
In the Donoghue v Stevenson case, Ms Donoghue was bought a ginger beer by a friend, and drank it, unknown to her, there was a snail in that ginger beer. She wanted to claim for damages but she did not buy the ginger beer so she couldn’t. instead, she sued the manufacturer, rightfully claiming they owed her a duty of care. This is how the neighbor test was born.
The neighbor test states;
"The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes m law you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer 's question” Who is my ' neighbour?" receives a restricted reply. 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." * Lord Aitken, 1932 (Donoghue vs. Stevenson)
Reasonable foreseeability is when it is reasonable to assume that there will be injury/harm in a certain situation. This is best explained using Jolley vs. Sutton London Borough Council. In this case, a 14 year old boy was playing on a boat which had not been moved by the Council, the boat fell on the boy and he was paralyzed. It is obvious that the Council knew that by leaving a boat there and not moving on it, children would come and play

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful