Law of Tort
29th September 2022
Negligence: Duty of Care
Negligence:
- The failure to act as a reasonable person.
- A reasonable person follows the standards of what is expected of them. (e.g) Beginner
drivers are expected to apply the same standard of driving as a professional driver.
Caselaw: Nettleship V Weston [1971] 3 WLR 370
D asked her friend to give her driving lessons in her friend’s husband car. The friend was told
that the car had insurance on the driver and passenger. D panicked lost control and hit a
lamppost. The friend was hurt on his left knee.
D is liable because he cannot use the fact that he was a learner as a defence as the same
standards of driving apply to both professional and learner drivers.
Expectation to standard of a reasonable person:
Child: Expected to exercise that their age group should exercise.
Rationale: children lack the foresight and strength to easily navigate through danger.
However, an older child who can have adulty duties (driving) the same reasonable person’s
standard applies.2
Caselaw: Donoghue Vs Stephenson [1932] AC 562HL
C went to a café in Glasgow and noticed how as she poured her drink there was snail
remains in her bottle. She became ill after.
The beer manufacturer is liable in negligence.
The case established that a manufacturer may owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer.
Created a general principle of liability.
Showed that the tort of negligence is dynamic and expandable.
29th September 2022
Negligence: Duty of Care
Negligence:
- The failure to act as a reasonable person.
- A reasonable person follows the standards of what is expected of them. (e.g) Beginner
drivers are expected to apply the same standard of driving as a professional driver.
Caselaw: Nettleship V Weston [1971] 3 WLR 370
D asked her friend to give her driving lessons in her friend’s husband car. The friend was told
that the car had insurance on the driver and passenger. D panicked lost control and hit a
lamppost. The friend was hurt on his left knee.
D is liable because he cannot use the fact that he was a learner as a defence as the same
standards of driving apply to both professional and learner drivers.
Expectation to standard of a reasonable person:
Child: Expected to exercise that their age group should exercise.
Rationale: children lack the foresight and strength to easily navigate through danger.
However, an older child who can have adulty duties (driving) the same reasonable person’s
standard applies.2
Caselaw: Donoghue Vs Stephenson [1932] AC 562HL
C went to a café in Glasgow and noticed how as she poured her drink there was snail
remains in her bottle. She became ill after.
The beer manufacturer is liable in negligence.
The case established that a manufacturer may owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer.
Created a general principle of liability.
Showed that the tort of negligence is dynamic and expandable.
