Negligence occurs if someone fails to take reasonable care to prevent loss, damage or injury to others whom they could reasonably have foreseen might be injured if that care was not taken. When accidents happen those usually involved want to believe that a negligence action has occurred and that it was due to the fault of someone else instead of believing it to be accidental. Negligence is a part of tort law, which consists of three essentials that need to be proven by the plaintiff in order to be successful in a negligence case. Duty of care, standard of care and sufficient connection in law are the three essentials that are needed in a negligence action case, which the concept was described by Lord Wright in Lochgelly Iron and Coal Co Ltd
…show more content…
This can be seen in Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112 at 120-121 where there was foreseeable risk due to the defendant’s negligent driving in the first place as it caused the initial accident and lead to the risk of the plaintiff. If the risk is unforeseeable then there is no liability due to there being no way of knowing that there was a risk because of their actions or omissions. Unforeseeable harm can be seen in the case Tame v New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR 317; 191 ALR 449; [2002] HCA 35, where the plaintiff suffered a psychiatric injury as a result of an error in recording her blood alcohol reading after an traffic accident occurred. The police officer did not have a duty of care to avoid causing the psychiatric injury, as it was unforeseeable that she would receive the injury as the error had been …show more content…
The risk produced must be compared against the harm so that it can be avoided. The higher the value of the defendant’s conduct is, the more likely that the creation of risk will be tolerable and justify a lower standard of care. This can be seen in the case Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954] 2 All ER 368 where Watt, a fireman, was injured when an inadequately secured jack rolled onto his leg while it was being transported to free a women trapped under a heavy vehicle. The fire authority had been justified in accepting the risk because the women’s life was on the line had the measures not been taken. This lowered the standard of care because of the emergency and which then meant that the fire authority did not fail in their duty of
This can be seen in Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112 at 120-121 where there was foreseeable risk due to the defendant’s negligent driving in the first place as it caused the initial accident and lead to the risk of the plaintiff. If the risk is unforeseeable then there is no liability due to there being no way of knowing that there was a risk because of their actions or omissions. Unforeseeable harm can be seen in the case Tame v New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR 317; 191 ALR 449; [2002] HCA 35, where the plaintiff suffered a psychiatric injury as a result of an error in recording her blood alcohol reading after an traffic accident occurred. The police officer did not have a duty of care to avoid causing the psychiatric injury, as it was unforeseeable that she would receive the injury as the error had been …show more content…
The risk produced must be compared against the harm so that it can be avoided. The higher the value of the defendant’s conduct is, the more likely that the creation of risk will be tolerable and justify a lower standard of care. This can be seen in the case Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954] 2 All ER 368 where Watt, a fireman, was injured when an inadequately secured jack rolled onto his leg while it was being transported to free a women trapped under a heavy vehicle. The fire authority had been justified in accepting the risk because the women’s life was on the line had the measures not been taken. This lowered the standard of care because of the emergency and which then meant that the fire authority did not fail in their duty of