Construction Ltd Built A School

Relevant law: To establish duty of care, plaintiff must prove the reasonable foreseeability of harm as the result of defendant’s acts or omissions,[ Chapman v Hearse (1961)] and the relationship was ‘sufficiently close’ to require defendant not to put the plaintiff at risk.

Myra cannot be paid any damages by Candie Cardigans for the injuries caused in Easton Hotel in the Fashion City event since the occurrence of the accident was not negligence on the defendant’s part. Although her fall was the direct cause for injury, the event was unforeseeable and indirect and no statue or standards had been set before to prevent any kind of breach of duty. The circumstances are unique and the approach of this case should be balanced on practicalities on how Candie should have reacted during her fall. (Roe v Minister of Health,

• If there is a ‘at risk’ of immediate significant harm to the person and you think other

In Gregg v Scott, Mr. Malcolm Gregg (‘the claimant’), the House of Lords examined the law of negligence in the area of personal injury. In order for the claimant to have a successful claim in court, the onus to shifts to the claimant to demonstrate that a duty of care owed by the doctor, there was a breach of that duty, an injury was sustained, and the negligence on behalf of the doctor Dr. Andrew Scott (‘defendant’) was a cause of the ‘injury’. If these elements are not satisfied, the claimant may lose its entitlement to full compensation.

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

Myra must present to the court proof that she suffered and injury for which she is requesting that the court order compensation.

Negligence is the failure to exercise due care or diligence that a reasonable or prudent man would exercise in similar circumstances. The law of negligence falls under tort law where it involves harm that is caused by carelessness and not intentional harm (Katter, 2002). A tort is a civil wrong that is in the form of a breach of duty, which amounts to legal remedy that is awarded in damages. Tort law rests upon two principles that state that an act or omission by the defendant interferes with the rights of the plaintiff, which in turn causes damages (Trindade, 2007). Secondly, the interference caused by the defendant gives rise to a cause of action for damages that are as near as possible to the plaintiff’s loss. Therefore, negligence can be defined as doing something that a reasonable man would not have done in similar circumstances or failure to do what a reasonable man would have done which amounts to infliction of harm.

The injured employee believes the Company is at fault for his injury because the company failed to ensure that the equipment he was required to use to perform his job was as not safe. His opinion is reasonable if the company knew that a design flaw existed and ignored it. No evidence has been provided that supports the claim that the Company or the shop foreman knowingly allowed unsafe equipment to be used in the

The tort of negligence was established with the leading case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) . Donoghue got sick from having a drink in a café after finding a snail in the bottle. Around this time, there was no route for litigation due to no contractual association. The only contractual commitment was with Donoghue’s friend who bought the drink and the café owner. Lord Atkin quoted the Bible’s principle of

Negligence in law can be defined as “a failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances”. Regarding the construction industry it is of importance to understand the roles of the many skilled professionals involved, such as the architects, quantity surveyors, engineers, project managers etc. Each of these professions have a duty of skill and care, however no matter how cautious or adroit each professional is, there is always the possibility and risk of something going wrong meaning they may be liable to their clients and third parties for damage and loss through negligence. Establishing who’s at fault and to what extent can be a difficult task as claiming negligence against one profession will in turn involve consideration of the potential negligence of anyone else who may have been implicated.

“In considering the liability question, it is of the utmost importance to keep in mind that if there is no liability, the result is striking: the only person who has a valid claim against the solicitor has suffered no loss, and the only person

- The existence of a duty of care, which was owed to him by the defendant

Has my team as registered and qualified designers failed to successfully acquire the appropriate level of care owed to the injured party?

injured by them to demand relief. In this way rules of law arise which limit the range of

One important requirement is that the damage or injury which has occurred must give rise to the presumption that the