The Legal Concept of Negligence

Introduction

The claim of negligence may arise in cases where an intending party fails to provide reasonable care. The common law recognises negligence as an act that is contradictory to the needs of a reasonable person within a community, wherein a subsequent damage has been proved that has been distinctively harmful for the person that has either occurred naturally or directly by the contradictory action. On the other side, had it not been for the negligent act no damage would have taken place at the first instance. In the case of Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856), the importance of Negligence was rightly upheld by Alderson B wherein the three most important criterion of negligence has been discussed through the words “Negligence 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 doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.”

Every negligent act does not have to be claimable therefore, the criteria that allow such claims are: There needs to be a duty of care that must be owed by the defendant and the failure to uphold such care could rise to the claim of negligence. Such duty was breached. This breach therefore, led to significant damage suffered by the claimant Lastly, there was no remoteness of damage.

While different misdeeds are meant by a specific interest of the petitioner which is secured (for example slander ensures notoriety, private aggravation secures use and delight in land, etc), the misdeed of carelessness secures numerous interests including those of the inquirer's individual, property and some financial interests. All things considered, sure of those interests keep on making issues for the courts, as in it isn't in every case clear how far the law ought to connect responsibility to the careless punishment of particular sorts of harm. As Lord Bridge expressed in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]: "It is never adequate to ask essentially whether An owes B an obligation of care. It is consistently important to decide the extent of the obligation by reference to the sort of harm from which An unquestionable requirement take care to save B innocuous" (accentuation added). To prevail in a carelessness activity, the petitioner should demonstrate that: • the respondent owed them an obligation of care; • the litigant was in break of that obligation Negligence: The Duty of Care – General Principles and Public Policy • the inquirer endured harm, which was brought about by that penetrate of obligation; and • the harm was not very distant. The inquirer may have certain guards raised against them, for instance, the charge that they were contributorily careless. Any petitioner in a carelessness activity should conquer certain lawful "obstacles" to set up that the misdeed of carelessness has been submitted. On the off chance that the inquirer pushes over any of the obstacles, their case falls flat. The cases that are fundamental for understanding this idea are Palsgraff v Long Island Railroad Co, Hay or Bourhill v Young; Caparo v Dickman; Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshir; and Osman v UK. These cases have planned the advanced comprehension of obligation of care, the Palsgraff Case put forward the thought that an individual ought not be answerable for unforeseeable conditions of their activities and in such cases an obligation won't be authorized, for example on the off chance that the person that was harmed isn't in a predictable arrangement of individuals that might be influenced by the offended party activities, at that point there is no obligation of care. On account of Bourhill this standard was re-asserted, where a bystander's wounds was not sensibly predictable in an impact; though the tenants in the vehicle that was slammed into would be. The instance of Caparo put forward the cutting edge test for the obligation of care which is a three pronged test that follows from the standards in Palsgraff and Bourhill. This test contains predictability, nearness and decency, equity and sensibility of perceiving such an obligation. Predictability is the idea as gone ahead by Bourhill; closeness is the connection between the predictability; the two people; and the decency of such a duty; and the reasonableness, equity and sensibility test is utilized to restrict for public arrangement reasons obligation, for example keeping the conduits closed. This is by all accounts the circumstance that was made on account of Hill; whereby assuming police were discovered careless by not securing crooks prior, the conduits would be opened and police examination exceptionally hampered. The last case that must be considered is Osman which took the law of

---

1. Lunney & Oliphant, 2000, Tort Law: Text & Materials, 100
2. Hay or Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92
3. Caparo v Dickman 5
4. Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
5. Osman v UK [1990] [1999] 1 FLR 193
6. Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923
7. Ultramares Corp v Touche, Niven amd Co. (1931) 174 NE 441
carelessness to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in regard to obligation of care and the resistance of cops from responsibility under Hill. The ECtHR tracked down that the insusceptibility was infringing upon Article 6(1), the privilege to a reasonable hearing; hence every circumstance should be given a reasonable hearing and vicinity and predictability should be appropriately thought of; along these lines on account of Barrett v London Borough of Enfield it was presumed that such striking-out practices can presently don't be taken, rather reasonableness and equity should be settled on the components of each case.

Claims established by Harry

In the first instance itself, the condition of Alexandra having pre-eclampsia was not correctly diagnosed by her GP which led a state of which she was definitely not mindful until she was conceded to emergency clinic subsequent to imploding at work. Her GP simply prompted that her pulse was 'somewhat high 'and it was ordinary in pregnancy. Alexandra proceeded working and fallen abruptly and was quickly raced to emergency clinic. This situation would not have risen if her GP would have diagnosed Alexandra having pre-eclampsia at the beginning which establishes the lack of duty of care towards her. On account of the sensible individual it was tracked down that any move that has been made, would take sensible consideration to forestall wounds to people that could be predictable claimants, for example it doesn't make any difference if the activity has never happened the chance of such an activity necessitates that the sensible individual take sensible care. If an individual has not taken sensible consideration then they would be in break of their obligation to any predictable petitioner regardless where there is more than an outlandish chance of injury The advisor obstetrician, Dr Williams, exhorted Alexandra that she had pre-eclampsia and that it very well might be important to convey the infant early. He further prompted Alexandra; she was fine to return home anyway she should rest for a couple of days. She inquired as to whether she

---

8. [1999] 3 WLR 79
9. Jansen, Nils. “Duties and Rights in Negligence: A Comparative and Historical Perspective on the European Law of Extracontractual Liability.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 24, no. 3, 2004, pp. 443–469. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3600563. Accessed 8 Apr. 2021.
10. Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850
11. Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92
12. All Answers ltd, 'Tort of Negligence in Medical Care: A Case Study' (Lawteacher.net, April 2021) accessed 8 April 2021
could proceed working and Dr Williams affirmed she could. Dr Williams didn't exhort Alexandra about the condition and what it might mean for the infant to be specific, that it could impair kidney and liver capacity, and cause blood thickening issues, pneumonic oedema (liquid on the lungs), seizures and, in extreme structures or whenever left untreated, maternal, and baby death. Pre-eclampsia affects the blood stream to the placenta, frequently prompting more modest or babies conceived rashly. After fourteen days Alexandra got back to her GP grumbling of extreme torment in her abdomen, windedness and steady serious cerebral pains. The GP encouraged her to rest. After two days Alexandra imploded and was conceded to clinic when she was seen by Dr Ferris, who mentioned routine blood and pee tests. The tests were deferred by 24 hours also, when the outcomes opened up Dr Ferris exhorted that the infant ought to be conveyed as an issue of earnestness. Infant Lucy was conveyed by a lesser specialist, who was not an expert obstetrician. Alexandra what's more, child Lucy were released home the next morning. Sometime thereafter, Alexandra endured a discharge and was raced to medical clinic by rescue vehicle.. It was thusly found the discharge happened because of the disappointment by the lesser specialist to eliminate all the placenta during the conveyance. Carelessness ought to consistently follow similar measures, whatever the conditions and on account of uniquely prepared experts in acting inside their forte there is a better quality of care, for example a Doctor rehearsing medication is decided against a sensible specialist. However in the space of clinical law it has been difficult to demonstrate carelessness besides in outrageous cases. This is by all accounts because of the court's hesitance to track down specialist's careless for botches except if they are gross slip-ups. The instance of Penny and Others v East Kent HA and N v Agrawal it was held that the deficient revealing of a specialist about an assault assessment was not careless on the grounds that there was no obligation of care, for example no quiet/specialist relationship. This brings up the issue when is there a specialist/patient relationship? The instance of Derry v Ministry of Defence is another illustration of offering invulnerability to careless specialists; for this situation the careless misdiagnosis of malignant growth was covered by crown insusceptibility. There are sure demonstrations of carelessness that can't be covered when they are so gross and the line of causation has been straightforwardly

Take a deeper dive into The Land Registration Act 2002 with our additional resources.



---

13. Penny and Others v East Kent HA [2000] PNLR 323
14. N v Agrawal [1999] 9th June Times
15. Derry v Ministry of Defence [1999] EWCA Civ 1016
connected to the first reason; likewise one more gathering can be held careless. Thus, under all circumstances Harry stands in a position to claim negligence under all grounds.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cases

• Lunney & Oliphant, 2000, Tort Law: Text & Materials, 100
• Hay or Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92
• Caparo v Dickman 5
• Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
• Osman v UK [1990] [1999] 1 FLR 193
• Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923
• Ultramares Corp v Touche, Niven amd Co. (1931) 174 NE 441
• [1999] 3 WLR 79
• Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850
• Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92

Articles / Journals

• All Answers ltd, 'Tort of Negligence in Medical Care: A Case Study' (Lawteacher.net, April 2021) accessed 8 April 2021
• Jansen, Nils. “Duties and Rights in Negligence: A Comparative and Historical Perspective on the European Law of Extracontractual Liability.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 24, no. 3, 2004, pp. 443–469. JSTOR
• All Answers ltd, 'Tort of Negligence in Medical Care: A Case Study' (Lawteacher.net, April 2021) accessed 8 April 2021

---

16. Winfield, Percy H. “Duty in Tortious Negligence.” Columbia Law Review, vol. 34, no. 1, 1934, pp. 41–66. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1115632. Accessed 8 Apr. 2021.