LL104 Law of Obligations Law of Negligence 75%

Dr. Emmanuel Voia!is

"#eesetown "ouncil organise$ t#e %"#eesetown E&'erts (air )011*. +#is was an
e,ent at w#ic# local 'eo'le wit# 'articular s!ills or e&'ertise offere$ a$,ice an$
assistance to ot#er townsfol! on a ,oluntar basis. -t was #el$ in a large room in t#e
+own .all. -n 'ublicit for t#e e,ent/ 0oris/ a #an$man/ offere$ to 'erform sim'le
biccle re'airs an$ 1ar,is/ a 'rofessor of anatom at "#eesetown 2ni,ersit/ offere$
free s'inal c#ec!s.
On t#e $a of t#e e,ent/ Darren too! #is biccle to t#e E&'erts (air because its bra!es
were not wor!ing ,er well. 0oris tig#tene$ t#e bra!e cable an$ tol$ Darren t#at it
s#oul$ be wor!ing fine. On t#e wa #ome from t#e e,ent/ t#e bra!es on Darren3s
biccle faile$ an$ #e cras#e$ into a wall/ suffering serious in4uries.
5ortia also atten$e$ t#e (air an$ $eci$e$ to #a,e #er s'ine c#ec!e$ b 1ar,is. 1ar,is
foun$ not#ing wrong wit# 5ortia3s s'ine an$ tol$ #er t#at it is in 'erfect con$ition.
.owe,er/ it was later establis#e$ t#at/ at t#e time of t#e (air/ 5ortia #a$ been
suffering from a rare but eas6to6$iagnose s'inal con$ition/ w#ic# now re7uires
urgent surger. -f 1ar,is #a$ ma$e a correct $iagnosis at t#e time of t#e (air/ 5ortia
woul$ #a,e #a$ 80% c#ances to reco,er full after surger. .er current c#ances of
full reco,er are below )0%.
9$,ise Darren an$ 5ortia :ignore an 'otential liabilit of "#eesetown "ouncil;
0oris
+#e 7uestion t#at arises is w#et#er 0oris can be #el$ liable for t#e tort of negligence.
+o 'ro,e t#e claim against 0oris/ counsel for t#e com'lainant nee$s to s#ow t#e
following<
1. Dut of "are
Caparo sets $own a t#ree6stage test to $etermine w#en a $ut of care is owe$. +#e
first 7uestion t#at nee$s to be as!e$ is -s it reasonabl foreseeable t#at if 0oris fails
to ta!e reasonable care Darren ma be #arme$= 9fter consi$eration/ t#e answer seems
to be es. Darren too! #is biccle to get it c#ec!e$ b a #an$man/ a 'erson s!ille$ at
a wi$e range of re'air wor!/ w#ic# in$icates t#at a 'erson in Darren3s situation woul$
reasonabl #a,e belie,e$ t#at #e woul$ !now #ow to re'air Darren3s biccle. .is
tig#tening of t#e bra!e cable an$ #is conse7uent statement suggests t#at 0oris
assume$ res'onsibilit for fi&ing it/ un$er t#e Hedley Byrne 'rinci'le. Darren
reasonabl relies on #is statement an$ conse7uentl/ $oes not ta!e #is biccle to a
,e#icle e&'ert.
-t woul$ be reasonabl foreseeable to a 'erson in 0oris3s situation t#at carelessness in
c#ec!ing t#e biccle/ consi$ering t#at Darren #a$ told him #is bra!es weren3t wor!ing
well/ e7uals lac! of reasonable care/ w#ic# in turn/ ma lea$ to #arm to a 'erson in
Darren3s situation. >oreo,er/ if a $efen$ant causes a claimant '#sical #arm or
'ro'ert $amage b #is positive actions/ t#en in ??.?% of cases/ a $ut of care will be
owe$ :'#sical #arm 'rinci'le;.
1
@- ANOB CO2D 0OOA E9CE EO/ 02+/ "O>E
ON/ CO2 ANOB 0E++ED< -ENF+ 5EC".-9+D-" .9D> 9 (OD> O(
5.CE-"9L .9D> +OO= G-VEN +.9+ >9NC "L9->E (OD 5EC".-9+D-"
.9D> (9-L/ +.E 9EEED+-ON +.9+ ??.?% O( 5.CE-"9L .9D> "L9->E
E2""EED -E E-+.ED 09EED ON 9 (9LEE ".9D9"+ED-H9+-ON O(
5EC".-9+D-" .9D> "9EEE/ OD -+ -E (9LEEI
+#e secon$ 7uestion t#at arises is -s t#ere a relations#i' of %'ro&imit* between
Darren an$ 0oris= 5ro&imit or %neig#bours*/ as establis#e$ b Lor$ 9t!in
)
/ are
%'ersons w#o are so closel an$ $irectl affecte$ b m act t#at - oug#t reasonabl to
#a,e t#em in m contem'lation as being so affecte$ w#en - am $irecting m min$ to
t#e acts or omissions*. 9ccor$ing to t#is $efinition/ it is e,i$ent t#at Darren woul$ be
$irectl affecte$ b an act of 0oris/ an$ an carelessness on 0oris3s 'art/ woul$
a$,ersel affect Darren.
+#e t#ir$ 7uestion t#at arises is -s it fair/ 4ust an$ reasonable to im'ose on 0oris a
$ut of care towar$s Darren= Ces/ it is. (irstl/ e,en t#oug# 0oris3s 'artici'ation in
t#e (air was ,oluntar/ #e $i$ stan$ to gain a lot of 'ublicit of #is s!ills if man
'eo'le came to #is stall. +#us/ e,en t#oug# #is actions were ,oluntar/ t#ere was a
moti,atingJgain factor be#in$ t#em. Lets loo! at it t#is wa #a$ e,ert#ing gone
well/ 0oris woul$ #a,e ma$e mone from all t#e 'eo'le w#o came to #ire #im for
#an$man wor! after t#e (air. .owe,er/ if #e ma!es a mista!e an$ is not #el$ liable
for #is actions/ $oes it not seem to be too sweet a $eal= Eecon$l/ if 0oris $i$n3t !now
#ow to re'air biccles/ #e s#oul$n3t #a,e ,olunteere$ at t#e (air or coul$ #a,e tol$
Darren t#at #is !nowle$ge was limite$ to simple biccle re'airs/ not t#e !in$ re7uire$
for #is biccle. +#us/ #e $i$ ,oluntaril assume res'onsibilit for fi&ing Darren3s
biccle. @EK"EED-NGLC BELL 5.D9EED. VEDC BELL DONEI
). 0reac# of t#at $ut
0reac# means failure to obser,e t#e reasonable stan$ar$ of care. +#e 7uestion t#at
woul$ arise #ere is/ how $o we $etermine w#at stan$ar$ of care is reasonable= "ase
law suggests t#at t#e answer to t#is 7uestion ,aries $e'en$ing on t#e circumstances.
-n t#is case/ we s#oul$ consi$er t#at Darren tol$ 0oris t#at t#e bra!es weren3t
wor!ing 'ro'erl an$ t#at 0oris 'rocee$e$ to re'air #is biccle/ t#us/ suggesting t#at
#e #a$ t#e abilit to fi& it. .ence/ t#e reasonable stan$ar$ of care woul$ be to tr to
wor! out w#at t#e fault was an$ if #e coul$n3t/ to refer Darren to some e&'ert/ w#ic#
0oris faile$ to $o.
L. Di$ 0oris3s breac# cause Darren3s loss=
1
>c0ri$e an$ 0ags#aw
)
Donog#ue , Ete,enson @1?L)I 9" 5M)/ ' 580
+o $etermine t#is/ we nee$ to as! w#at woul$ #a,e #a''ene$ #a$ t#e $efen$ant
e&ercise$ reasonable care= +#e bur$en of 'roof is on Darren to 'ro,e t#at it is more
likely than no t t#at / but for 0oris3s breac#/ Darren woul$ not #a,e suffere$ t#e
rele,ant loss or in4ur. -t is 'robable t#at Darren woul$ #a,e s#owe$ #is biccle to an
e&'ert soon consi$ering t#at t#e bra!es weren3t wor!ing 'ro'erl. Eince #e
reasonabl belie,e$ t#at 0oris #a$ re'aire$ #is biccle bra!es/ #e use$ it an$
subse7uentl suffere$ serious in4uries. On a balance of 'robabilities/ if 0oris #a$ tol$
#im #e coul$n3t fi& it or tol$ #im to ta!e it to an e&'ert/ it seems fairl ob,ious t#at #e
woul$n3t #a,e ri$$en on it. >oreo,er/ if #e #a$ carefull re'aire$ #is biccle/ t#e
in4ur still woul$n3t #a,e occurre$. +#erefore/ 0oris3s breac# of $ut was a cause of
Darren3s loss.
1ar,is
+#e 7uestion t#at arises is w#et#er 1ar,is can be #el$ liable for t#e tort of negligence.
-n or$er to establis# t#e claim/ t#e following nee$s to be 'ro,en<
1. Dut of care
-s it reasonabl foreseeable t#at if 1ar,is fails to ta!e reasonable care 5ortia ma be
#arme$= 1ar,is3s agreement to ta!e 'art in t#e NE&'ert3 (air $enotes an im'licit
acce'tance b #im t#at #e is s!ille$ in t#e fiel$ #e is ,olunteering for/ t#at is/ s'inal
c#ec!s. "onsi$ering t#is/ it woul$ be reasonable for 5ortia to trust t#e c#ec! #e
con$ucts. -t woul$ be reasonabl foreseeable for a 'erson in 1ar,is3s situation to
realiOe t#at carelessness on #is 'art ma #arm anone in 5ortia3s situation consi$ering
t#at #e #as ,olunteere$ as an Ne&'ert3 in t#e fair.
-s t#ere a relations#i' of 'ro&imit/ as $efine$ b Lor$ 9t!in/ between 1ar,is an$
5ortia= Ces/ t#ere is. 9ccor$ing to t#e $efinition/ 5ortia woul$ be $irectl affecte$ b
1ar,is3s s'inal c#ec!.
-s it fair/ 4ust an$ reasonable to im'ose on 1ar,is a $ut of care towar$s 5ortia=
-t seems t#at since a 'erson in 5ortia3s situation coul$ reasonabl #a,e relie$ on
1ar,is/ t#in!ing #im to be com'etent enoug# to con$uct a s'inal c#ec! an$ since
1ar,is #imself im'lie$ t#at #e was com'etent b un$erta!ing t#e 4ob/ it woul$ be fair
to im'ose a $ut of care. .owe,er/ #a,ing sai$ t#at/ it woul$ also be reasonable for
1ar,is to assume t#at 5ortia or anone in #er situation woul$ not 'lace sole reliance on
#is tests because #e was not a 7ualifie$ me$ical 'rofessional. Eecon$l/ t#is case can
be $istinguis#e$ from 0oris3s case in t#at 0oris was tol$ t#e biccle wasn3t wor!ing
'ro'erl so t#ere was an a$$e$ bur$en to be even more careful w#en c#ec!ing t#e
biccle w#ereas 5ortia 4ust $eci$e$ to get #er s'ine c#ec!e$ because t#e facilit was
a,ailable. "onsi$ering t#e circumstances/ 1ar,is3s $ut of care is consi$erabl
re$uce$. @.OLD ON. .OB 90O2+ +.E ->5OD+9N"E O( +.E +.DE9+ENED
-N+EDEE+ O( 5FE= E.O2LDNF+ +.9+ 9((E"+ +.E 9EEEEE>EN+ O(
B.E+.ED -+ BO2LD 0E (9-D +O ->5OEE 9 D2+C ON 1= 5ED.95E -+FE
0E++ED +O DE9L B-+. 9NC L9"A O( V-G-L9N"E ON 5FE 59D+ 9E 9N
9E5E"+ O( "ON+D-02+ODC NEGL-GEN"EPI
). 0reac# of t#at $ut
1ar,is #as breac#e$ #is $ut in two was. (irstl/ b not con$ucting #er s'ine c#ec!
carefull an$ e,en going as far as to sa t#at #er s'ine was in perfect con$ition w#en
s#e actuall #a$ an eas6to6$iagnose s'inal con$ition. -f #e #a$ been careful/ #e
s#oul$ #a,e realiOe$ t#at somet#ing was wrong an$ referre$ #er to an e&'ert.
Eecon$l/ b un$erta!ing to con$uct s'inal c#ec!s wit#out e&'licitl stating t#at #e
was not me$icall 7ualifie$.
L. Di$ 1ar,is3s breac# cause 5ortia3s loss=
5ortia woul$ #a,e to 'ro,e t#at it was more likely than not that, but for 1ar,is3s
breac#/ s#e woul$ not #a,e suffere$ t#e rele,ant in4ur.
Lets loo! at two 'ossible scenarios to $etermine w#et#er 1ar,is3s breac# cause$
5ortia3s in4ur. (irst/ imagine if 5ortia #a$ ne,er gone to t#e (air or if t#ere was no
(air. -n t#at situation/ s#e woul$n3t #a,e gotten a s'inal c#ec! an$ on a balance of
'robabilities/ woul$ be in t#e same situation s#e is in now. Eecon$/ lets imagine a
situation in w#ic# 1ar,is #a$n3t been negligent. E,en if 1ar,is #a$ 'ointe$ out #er
con$ition/ 80 out of a 100 'eo'le in #er situation woul$ #a,e reco,ere$. +#ere is no
way of $etermining w#et#er 5ortia woul$ #a,e been one of t#e 80 or w#et#er s#e
woul$ #a,e been 1 of t#e ot#er )0. -t is e,i$ent t#at e,en if 1ar,is #a$ been careful/
5ortia could #a,e been in t#e same situation s#e is in now. @E2DE/ 02+ -ENF+ +.9+
+.E "9EE B.ENEVED "92E9+-ON -E DE+ED>-NED
5DO090-L-E+-"9LLC=I 9s establis#e$ b 'rece$ent in Gregg , Ecott
L
:a similar
case;/ since t#ere e&ists no suc# t#ing as Nloss of a c#ance3/ it cannot be com'ensate$.
+#e main argument in fa,our of t#is is t#at if t#e courts awar$ $amages base$ on t#e
chance t#at t#e $efen$ant cause$ t#e claimant3s loss/ t#en consistenc woul$ re7uire
t#at everyone get $amages 'ro'ortionate to t#e li!eli#oo$ t#at t#e $efen$ant cause$
t#e loss. -n$ee$/ if t#is were t#e case/ 5ortia woul$ onl get 80% of t#e loss
com'ensate$ as o''ose$ to t#e 100% t#e law grants. +#is seems to be unfair as e,en
t#oug# it #as been establis#e$ t#at 1ar,is3s tort cause$ #er #arm more likely than not,
in a situation w#ere t#ere is no definite answer, s#e still #as to 'a for )0% of #er
loss. @(OD"E(2LLC 52+I
L
Gregg , Ecott @)005I 2A.L )
-n conclusion/ 0oris s#oul$ be #el$ liable. .owe,er/ t#e consi$eration t#at 0oris was
,olunteering wit#out 'ament Noug#t to negate/ or to re$uce t#e sco'e of t#e $ut3
4

an$ t#e amount of $amages #e s#oul$ 'a. 1ar,is s#oul$ not be #el$ liable because it
cannot be $etermine$/ on a balance of 'robabilities/ if it was #is breac# t#at cause$
5ortia3s in4ur/ as t#ere is no wa of calculating t#e loss of a c#ance. @- BO2LDNF+
52+ -+ L-AE +.9+/ +.O2G. - EEE CO2D 5O-N+< -+FE >ODE +.9+ ONE
"9NF+ "L9-> "O>5ENE9+-ON (OD .9D> +O 9N -N+EDEE+ B.EN +.E
.9D> .9E NO+ CE+ O""2DDED.I
ONE O( +.E 0EE+ EEE9CE -FVE EEEN -N +.-E 09+"./ E.OB-NG GDE9+
LEG9L -N+2-+-ON 9ND 9 "L9D-+C O( EK5L9N9+-ON +.9+ ONLC (EB
E+2DEN+E .9VE >9E+EDED. NOB LE+FE EEE -( - "9N GE+ CO2 +O
+9AE 9 E->-L9DLC "D-+-"9L 9++-+2DE +O >"0D-DE Q 09GE.9BP
75%
4
9nns , Lon$on >erton 0" @1?78I 9" 7)8/ '' 7516)