Introduction
Negligence by definition can be described as an act of carelessness dictated by the law for the protection of other people against foreseeable risk of harm that may occur from the act. A person can be held responsible for negligence when they have acted carelessly outside of a reasonable man conduct. This assignment is designed with aims to explain the circumstances and elements of how a negligent may be established, the consequences of decisions using relevant cases to highlight the importance of the negligent and its elements.
There are 3 elements of negligence that has to be observed when one is to decide whether a negligent has occurred and they are:
i. A duty of care is owed ii. Duty of care is breached iii. Losses due to …show more content…
Citing the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson, an important case which sets the legal basis for negligence, the manufacturer of the ginger beer, Stevenson was held responsible for the injury inflicted on to Donoghue due to his negligent in preparation of his ginger beers. The facts of this case is that Donoghue whom has drank a bottle of ginger beer purchased by a friend, has became ill after discovering a snail carcass in the ginger beer. Stevenson in this was told that he ought to take care of his production in order to injure his neighbour; a person who are close and could directly be affected by his action. (E-Law Resources, …show more content…
The statements which turned out to be false stated that the company, Fidelity Plc had made a profit of 1.3Million Pounds when in fact, it has recorded a loss of 400,000 Pounds. Acting on this statement, Caparo had purchased shares in the company which he incurred losses after the company went bankrupt. Caparo sued claiming negligent but the court give judgment to the defendant on the reason that there was no duty of care owed. As it stands at the time, the auditors didn’t even know of Caparo which means that there was no sufficient proximity between the two parties. What came out of the case is what’s known as the Caparo Test which sets to distinct that the harm that may occurs is foreseeable and there has to be a proximity relationship which in this case, should have been Caparo seeking advice from the auditors instead of reacting on rumours. Finally, the duty of care imposed on a party must be just and fair. (e-law Resources,
Negligence by definition can be described as an act of carelessness dictated by the law for the protection of other people against foreseeable risk of harm that may occur from the act. A person can be held responsible for negligence when they have acted carelessly outside of a reasonable man conduct. This assignment is designed with aims to explain the circumstances and elements of how a negligent may be established, the consequences of decisions using relevant cases to highlight the importance of the negligent and its elements.
There are 3 elements of negligence that has to be observed when one is to decide whether a negligent has occurred and they are:
i. A duty of care is owed ii. Duty of care is breached iii. Losses due to …show more content…
Citing the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson, an important case which sets the legal basis for negligence, the manufacturer of the ginger beer, Stevenson was held responsible for the injury inflicted on to Donoghue due to his negligent in preparation of his ginger beers. The facts of this case is that Donoghue whom has drank a bottle of ginger beer purchased by a friend, has became ill after discovering a snail carcass in the ginger beer. Stevenson in this was told that he ought to take care of his production in order to injure his neighbour; a person who are close and could directly be affected by his action. (E-Law Resources, …show more content…
The statements which turned out to be false stated that the company, Fidelity Plc had made a profit of 1.3Million Pounds when in fact, it has recorded a loss of 400,000 Pounds. Acting on this statement, Caparo had purchased shares in the company which he incurred losses after the company went bankrupt. Caparo sued claiming negligent but the court give judgment to the defendant on the reason that there was no duty of care owed. As it stands at the time, the auditors didn’t even know of Caparo which means that there was no sufficient proximity between the two parties. What came out of the case is what’s known as the Caparo Test which sets to distinct that the harm that may occurs is foreseeable and there has to be a proximity relationship which in this case, should have been Caparo seeking advice from the auditors instead of reacting on rumours. Finally, the duty of care imposed on a party must be just and fair. (e-law Resources,