Negligence in Tort Law: Key Concepts and Legal Principles Explained
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.ค. 2024
- 📝 Get my FREE GUIDE on how to make exam notes in my ingenious style: julieschmidtlaw.com/b/l8Lic
➡️ Purchase my notes for this subject: julieschmidtlaw.com/b/R1vdM
🏆 I was top of this subject at law school and 13 others. My notes are incredible and I have already sold hundreds to NZ law students.
---
There are 5 things to think about when answering a negligence problem. But first, to understand this tort (or civil wrongdoing) let’s think about it practically.
I want you to imagine your walk to work, or if you don’t walk to work, your walk from your car to your front doorstep. Place yourself there and imagine yourself doing it. OK now imagine someone running past you extremely fast and hitting into you. Now imagine you were carrying an antique case that fell on the ground after they hit into you and smashed into pieces. That’s potentially a negligent act.
1. DUTY OF CARE: So first you need to think, does this person running past you owe you a duty of care? Well we could say yes, as they are close to you and hit into you. They’re not some stranger in Madagasgar that has nothing to do with you. They are in close proximity to you and it was foreseeable that if they ran to fast they would hit into someone like you walking to work. So that’s one stage.
2. STANDARD OF CARE: Then think if they were close to you, did they breach the standard a normal person walking on the footpath should owe people? Probably yes, since they were running like a crazy person so fast they hit into you. A reasonable person would walk or run carefully on a footpath, not like an idiot and hit into you.
3. CAUSATION: Then you have suffered damage, which is the vase smashing let’s say. Did them hitting into you cause you to drop the vase? In this case yes. It’s not that you dropped it already then they hit into you, they hit into you then you dropped it because of that. So that’s the causation element.
4. REMOTENESS/FORESEEABLE:Then we need to think if the type of harm is foreseeable. For the vase, if it’s a $100k vase it might not be foreseeable that someone would carry such a randomly fragile and expensive item, so maybe this wouldn’t all be covered as a reasonable person wouldn’t expect to pay that when running negligently. But maybe some of it will be covered.
5. DEFENCES: Then you need to think if they have any defences, like were you also running like a crazy person and therefore did you contribute to the negligent act by also being negligent?
(Please note I am only a law student and do not intend for anyone to rely on this information. It is merely my understanding of this area of law. I accept no liability for anyone who has relied on this information for any purpose.)
Negligence tort law notes. Negligence tort law cases. Negligence tort law examples. Negligence in tort law includes. Negligence test tort law.
You’re a life saver, best summary with just enough detail, makes everything make so much more sense! Thank you!!
Aww thank you so much for the feedback. Thank you! 💗 I also sell my negligence notes here if you’re interested: julieschmidtlaw.com/b/Z3Rfm
Wow I wish I saw this before my exam. So insightful!
plot twist : they never opened their eyes again.
You explain it so clearly. THANKYOU!!!
Aww that’s so kind of you to say, you’re welcome and thank you for the kind feedback! 🥰
Oh my gosh you are a lifesaver, I have been struggling this year 2nd yr Law, to comprehend all the information I'm learning, you make it too easy to understand. Thank you so much
Aww thank you very much for your kind words Emma! I massively appreciate your feedback and am so glad my video helped you! I have a bunch of free resources for law students on my website too (www.julieschmidtlaw.com). Please go download some :)
This was so helpful, hope you'll make more law topic videos!
Thanks so much Fariah!
Thank u madam I'm Arnold from Botswana 🇧🇼 u just made my reading simple thanx a million I'm a first year student of law
You're very welcome Arnold. I'm glad I could help! Thank you so much for leaving that kind feedback. All the best with your first year of law :)
@julieschmidtlaw I will do my best, its unfortunate that I'm taking the program as distance studies😪
@@arnoldlets9610 Oh no, distance learning is hard. I hope it goes well. Thank you again for your support.
😅😅I will just have to try madam, it's something I truly love. Even the books are sent to me as soft copies I have to print them at internet café with some money but that's life. I will rely on these videos of yours for help😅😅
I found this extremely helpful! Is there any chance if you could do a video on helpful ways on learning civil litigation? As well as top tips for learning tort case law? Thank you
Thanks Kartia! I will try to cover these topics in future videos but am working full-time as a lawyer now so am quite busy.
Good one
Amazing!!!
Thank you so much!
Thankz
Great work Julie. Content highly recommended. Extremely five ⭐
Thank you so much Conrad ☺️
@@julieschmidtlaw you are welcome Julie.
Wow you explained this so well!!
Aww thank you so much!
2:01 in New Zealand.
Good ma'am
Nice I understand it better
I'm glad! Thanks for the comment
Do you have another platform we can follow you on I need this right now
Not at the moment sorry! You can email me for notes: julieschmidt95@outlook.com
amazing video but can i open my eyes now
Thank you! Hahaha never 😂🙈
What can we say about a guy who doesn't put the brake on his car and it rolls down the hill and smashes in to a shop and the person dives out of the way gets hurt and is injured further by glass
It seems like there would be a duty of care between the driver and the person injured, as they are proximate and it is foreseeable the that if the driver does not put his brake on he could injure a person nearby. The standard of care does not seem to be met, as a reasonable person would put his brake on. The negligent act of not putting the brake on caused the glass to shatter, which injured the person. (This is not legal advice.)
@Julie Schmidt Law lol don't need legal advice, just just got my legal question and need my answer comparing. I saw it as the driver had broken his duty of care to other road users and pedestrians. Failed the reasonable person test. Has factual causation for the as but for test as if not for him not putting the brake on it wouldn't have crashed in the window, he wouldn't have dived out of the way and he wouldn't have cut himself on the glass. Legally he wouldn't have been hurt either. Then under broken skull theory and think liable cos of the back
...I think am on right track.. been sat reading all day
@@brigoose7945 Nice work! You might want to check out the case Bourhill v Young if you haven't already, seems somewhat related
For DOC do you not use the caparo 3 part test?
First, great video! The UK kinda went through this route: Donoghue-Ann’s (fell out of disfavour)-Caparo in the 90s
Interesting to know that NZ employed “fair, just and reasonable” (same third limb in Caparo), hope it didn’t turn out as two confusing sets of authorities or judges discretionarily denying duty.
I’m shocked it’s so different to Australia 😮
That’s interesting, in what ways is it different?
Donoghue v Stevenson “the neighbour principle
Hello
Can i open my eyes yet
Haha never :D
And still my son is in Jail this is ridiculous
Oh. Stop it. Duty Breach Causation Injury cause without it no Damages. But for exceptions. Done.