Duty of Care and Negligence Claims

Remoteness

For a negligence claim to be a success, claimants are required to prove that the defendant owed them a duty of care and the duty was breached leading to damages that were not remote. Any damages that happen as a result of the acts of the defendant and which the defendant could not anticipate reasonably or which occur as a result of happenings that are not the ordinary or natural results of the acts of the defendant are referred to as remote damages. Quincy owed Rosie a duty of care for damage of her property. Rosie did not get hurt in the whole fracas even though she suffered severe depression. Quincy breached that duty because he did not make adequate precautions to prevent the possibilities of fire. Overloading a socket, in the eyes of any reasonable man would lead to overheating which can lead to a fire.

Alcock Criteria

The case of Alcock & ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire which was heard by Lord Oliver established the distinction between primary victims and secondary victims.. Secondary victims are such individuals who are more than passive and unwilling witnesses to other people’s injury while primary victims are those who are involved immediately as participants. For claims for psychiatrist harm by secondary victims to succeed, they are required to prove that;

There was a close tie of love and affection between them and a primary victim,

Their own unaided senses witnessed the event.

The psychiatric injury they suffered was brought about by a shocking event.

There were proximal to the event and its aftermath.

Victoria who is a secondary victim and who is Quincy`s fiancée cannot bring up a claim for psychiatric injury, because there was no duty of care owed to her. Victoria would have to be Quincy`s spouse to bring a suit for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Even though Victoria was a part of the immediate after effects, she cannot bring a claim because she is only Quincy`s fiancée.

Breach

In the case of Roe v Minister of Health, an anaesthetic that had been contaminated with a sterilising fluid had been administered to the claimants for operations that were minor. As a result both claimants were paralysed. It was during storage that the anaesthetic had been contaminated. Glass ampoules had been used to store the anaesthetic. It happened that there were minute cracks in the ampoules which the human eye could not detect. Because the risk was not foreseeable, it was held that there was no breach of duty.

The type of loss incurred determines the legal test for imposing a duty of care. To determine the legal test to be followed to impose the duty of care it would be necessary to analyse the losses that were incurred. In this case, the losses suffered by Rosie are severe because all her paintings were destroyed. There was a high likelihood of harm from the overloading of the socket. In the case of Bolton v Stone, it was held that there was no breach of duty because the defendant had taken many practical precautions and as such, the likelihood of harm was low.