Law

 of  Tort

Define  a  Tort?  (J’08  Q5)

There  is  no  clear-­‐cut  definition  of  a  tort.  (it  has  been  variously  defined)
-­‐ A  civil  wrong  for  which  the  remedy  is  a  common  law  action  for  unliquidated  damages  and  which  is  not  exclusively  the  
breach  of  a  contract  or  the  breach  of  a  trust  or  other  equitable  obligation.
Salmond  (the  well  known  author  on  torts)
-­‐ A  civil  wrong  other  than  a  claim  for  breach  of  contract;  and  for  which  a  right  of  civil  action  for  damages  may  arise.
-­‐ The  basis  of  liability  in  tort  is  that  no  one  has  the  right  to  cause  injury  or  damage  to  a  person  or  his  property.
-­‐ The  person  suffering  the  injury  or  damage  has  the  right  to  claim  monetary  compensation  (damages)  from  the  party  
who  caused  such  injury.  
-­‐ Trespass,  negligence  and  defamation  are  example  of  torts.

Definition
Blyth  v  Birmingham  Waterworks  Co
‘The  omission  to  do  something   Tort  of  Negligence
(D’09  Q8)
which  a  reasonable  man,  guided  
upon  those  considerations  which  
ordinarily  regulate  the  conduct   In  order  to  succeed  in  an  action  in  the  tort  of  negligence,  
of  human  affairs  would   a  plaintiff  is  required  to  prove  the  following.
do,  or  doing  something  
which  a  prudent  and   1. that  the  defendant  owed  the  plaintiff  a  duty  of  care;
reasonable  man  would   2.that  the  defendant  breached  that  duty  of  care;  and  
not  do. 3.that  the  plaintiff  suffered  damages  as  a  consequence  of  that  breach.

Duty  of  Care Breach  of  Duty  of  Care Resultant  Damage

-­‐ A  person  has  a  duty  to  take   -­‐ Reasonable  Man’s  Test -­‐ The  plaintiff  has  to  further  prove  that  
reasonable  steps  to  avoid  acts  or   A  breach  of  the  duty  of  care  is  said  to   it  was  because  of  the  breach  of  duty  
omissions  which  he  can  reasonably   occur  when  the  defendant  has  failed   by  the  defendant  that  he  (plaintiff)  
foresee  are  likely  to  injure  his   to  do  what  a  reasonable  person   has  suffered  damages.
neighbour. would  have  done,  or  has  done    
something  which  a  reasonable   -­‐ The  damages  must  also  be  
-­‐ Neighbour person  would  not  have  done.     reasonably  foreseeable  and  not  too  
Lord  Atkins  -­‐  ‘persons  who  are  so     remote.
closely  and  directly  affected  by  the   -­‐ Whether  or  not  the  defendant  has   The  Wagon  Mound
defendant’s  act  or  omission  that  the   breached  that  duty  is  a  matter  of  fact  
defendant  must  have  him  in  mind   to  be  determined  by  the  court,  in  the  
when  he  does  the  act  or  omission  in   particular  circumstances.
question’.   Bourhill  v  Young
Donoghue  v  Stevenson

-­‐ Example  -­‐  a  road  user  owes  other  

road  users  a  duty  of  care.  He  has  the  
duty  to  avoid  acts  or  omission  which  
he  can  reasonably  foresee  will  cause  
injury  to  other  road  users.

 7  -­‐  1                                                                                                                        ⓒ  Teh  Joo  Ling  All  rights  reserved

 Duty  of  Care

Lord  Atkin’s  Test Ann’s  Test Caparo’s  3  Part  Test

(2  Stage  Test)
-­‐ Neighbour (Lord  Wilberforce  in  Anns  v  Merton  London   -­‐ Foresight
Borough  Council)  
Lord  Atkins  -­‐  ‘persons  who  are  so   The  damage  was  reasonably  
-­‐ First  Stage
closely  and  directly  affected  by  the   foreseeable.
It  must  be  determined  whether  there  
defendant’s  act  or  omission  that  the   -­‐ Proximity
is  a  sufficient  relationship  of  
defendant  must  have  him  in  mind   There  is  close  and  direct  relationship  
proximity  or  neighbourhood  
when  he  does  the  act  or  omission  in   of  proximity  between  the  plaintiff  
between  the  alleged  tortfeasor  and  
question’.   and  the  defendant.
the  person  who  has  suffered  the  loss.  
-­‐ Fairness
If  it  can  be  ascertained  that  the  
-­‐ Neighbour  Test The  circumstances  as  a  whole  must  
tortfeasor  should  have  foreseen  that  
Lord  Atkin’s  Test  -­‐  ‘one  must  take   be  such  that  it  is  just  and  equitable  
carelessness  o  his  part  may  cause  
reasonable  care  to  avoid  acts  or   for  the  imposition  of  a  duty  of  care.
damage  to  the  other  party,  prima  
omissions  that  one  can  reasonably  
facie,  a  duty  of  care  would  be  
foresee  would  be  likely  to  injure   Caparo  Industries  Plc  v  Dickman
established.   (In  this  case,  some  shareholders  of  a  public  co.  bought  
one’s  neighbour’.
  more  shares  in  the  co.  and  later  made  a  successful  
Donoghue  v  Stevenson takeover  of  the  co.  in  reliance  on  the  audited  accounts,  
-­‐ Second  Stage which  showed  substantial  profits  for  the  co.  However,  
if  the  answer  to  the  above  is  in  the   in  fact  the  co.  had  suffered  substantial  loss.  In  an  
action  against  the  defendants  (auditors),  the  House  of  
affirmative  (‘yes’),  the  court  then  has   Lords  held  the  defendants  not  liable)
to  examine  whether  there  are  any  
considerations  that  may  negate,   1. The  auditor  of  a  public  co.’s  
reduce  or  limit  the  scope  of  the  duty,   accounts  owes  no  duty  of  care  to  a  
or  the  group  of  persons  to  whom  the   member  of  the  public  at  large  who  
duty  will  be  imposed. relies  on  the  accounts  to  buy  shares  
in  the  co.
2.An  auditor  also  owes  no  duty  of  care  
to  an  individual  s/holder  in  a  co.  who  
wishes  to  buy  more  shares  in  the  
co..  The  auditor’s  duty  was  to  the  
body  of  s/holders  as  a  whole.
3.There  will  not  be  a  relationship  of  
proximity  if  the  maker  of  the  
statement  has  no  reason  to  
anticipate  that  his  statement  might  
be  relied  on  by  strangers  for  anyone  
of  a  variety  of  different  purposes.
4.A  relationship  of  proximity  can  exist  
if  the  maker  of  the  statement  knows  
that  his  statement  will  be  
communicated  to  the  plaintiff,  
whether  as  a  specific  individual  or  as  
a  member  of  an  identifiable  class.
5.Proximity  is  established  if  the  
statement  is  made  in  connection  to  
a  particular  transaction  and  the  
(identifiable)  plaintiff  is  very  likely  to  
rely  on  the  statement  for  the  
purpose  of  deciding  whether  to  
enter  into  that  transaction.

 7  -­‐  2                                                                                                                        ⓒ  Teh  Joo  Ling  All  rights  reserved

 Breach  of  Duty  of  Care
Prove  that  the  defendant  was  negligent.

The  Reasonable  Man’s  Test  -­‐  Blyth  v  Birmingham  Waterworks  Co

‘Negligence  is  the  omission  to  do  something  which  a  reasonable  man,  guided  upon  
those  considerations  which  ordinarily  regulate  the  conduct  of  human  affairs  would  
do,  or  doing  something  which  a  prudent  and  reasonable  man  would  not  do.
For  example,  the  test  in  determining  the  standard  of  care  of  a  doctor  -­‐
Bolam  v  Friern  Hospital  Management  Committee
Professionals  will  be  judged  by  the  standard  of  the  ordinary  skilled  man  exercising  and  
professing  to  have  that  special  skill.

Standard  of  Care

1. The  level  of  Intelligence  and  Knowledge
-­‐  A  reasonable  man  is  sometimes  described  as  ‘the  man  on  the  street’/  ‘man  on  the  Clapham  Omnibus’

2.Professions  and  Skills

-­‐ A  professional  will  not  be  deemed  to  be  negligent  if  he  has  taken  steps  that  would  normally  be  taken  by  others  who  are  
in  the  same  position  (or  reasonable  person  with  the  relevant  skills).
-­‐ Ang  Tiong  Seng  v  Goh  Huan  Chir  (Std  of  a  sinseh  ≠  doctor;  however,  in  this  case,  the  sinseh  was  held  liable  as  he  was  careless  in  his  treatment  of  the  plaintiff)
-­‐ Whitehouse  v  Jordan  (error  of  clinical  judgement  is  not  necessary  indicative  of  negligence;  not  done  on  purpose)
-­‐ Wilsher  v  Essex  Area  Health  Authority  (std  of  care  should  be  related  to  the  ‘post’  of  the  defendant  and  not  his  individual  level  (jr/sr)  of  experience)

3.Practice  and  knowledge  at  the  time  of  the  breach

-­‐ The  standard  of  care  of  a  professional  is  judged  at  the  knowledge  available  at  the  time  of  the  breach.
-­‐ Roe  v  Mister  of  Health  (the  CoA  held  that  the  std  of  care  must  be  based  on  the  current  knowledge  at  the  time  of  the  alleged  breach  and  not  at  the  time  of  trial)

4.Probability  of  the  injury  occurring

-­‐ It  is  presumed  that  a  reasonable  man  takes  greater  precautions  when  the  risk  of  injury  is  high.
-­‐ Boulton  v  Stone  (A  person  must  only  take  reasonable  steps  against  risks  that  may  materialize)
-­‐ Glasgow  Corporation  v  Taylor  (A  local  authority  was  held  negligent  when  children  ate  poisonous  berries  in  a  park.  A  warning  notice  was  not  considered  to  be  
sufficient  to  protect  children.)

5.Seriousness  of  the  injury

-­‐ A  higher  degree  of  care  would  be  imposed  in  cases  which  involves  the  young,  old  and  sickly  as  they  are  more  prone  to  
more  serious  injury  than  an  able  bodied  person.
-­‐ Paris  v  Stepney  Borough  Council  (Employer  had  a  duty  to  take  reasonable  care  to  ensure  the  safety  of  the  working  environment)

6.Issues  of  Practicality  and  Cost

-­‐ Eliminating  harm  must  be  proportional  to  the  danger.
-­‐ Latimer  v  AEC  Ltd  (No  breach,  because  the  employer  took  the  reasonable  precaution  -­‐-­‐  buying  sawdust  to  prevent  slippery  floor)

7.Social  Benefit
-­‐ If  the  defendant’s  actions  served  a  socially  useful  purpose  then  he  may  be  protected  from  liability.
-­‐ (e.g.  have  to  weigh  -­‐  save  100  people,  as  a  result  injured  1  person..NEVER  MIND  ;)  )
-­‐ (e.g.  Police/Ambulance  speed  to  save  life  and  injured  someone,  cannot  be  sued)

8.Res  Ipsa  Loquitur  -­‐  ‘the  facts  speak  for  themselves’

-­‐ Claimant  does  not  have  to  prove  defendant  was  negligent,  rather,  defendant  must  prove  that  the  act  was  not  negligent.
-­‐ The  following  Criteria  must  be  satisfied  before  the  maxim  can  be  applicable  (before  plaintiff  can  rely  on  this  maxim)
a. The  accident  must  be  such  that  would  not  normally  happen  without  negligence.
b. The  defendant  must  have  had  sole  control  of  the  thing  which  caused  the  accident
c. The  exact  cause  of  the  accident  must  be  unknown.
-­‐ Teoh  Guat  Looi  v  Ng  Hong  Guan
-­‐ Scott  v  London  &  St  Katherine  Docks  Co.
-­‐ Mahon  v  Osborne  (surgeon  was  required  to  prove  that  leaving  a  swab  inside  a  patient  after  an  operation  was  not  negligent)

 7  -­‐  3                                                                                                                        ⓒ  Teh  Joo  Ling  All  rights  reserved

 Resultant  Damage
Claimant  must  prove  that  as  a  natural  consequence  of  
the  breach,  the  claimant  suffered  damage

The  plaintiff  will  have  to  prove  that  the  damage  or  injury  was  
caused  by  the  breach  of  the  defendant  of  the  duty  of  care.

Causation  in  Fact Causation  in  Law

Claimant  must  prove  causation Remoteness
‘But-­‐for’  Test Remoteness  of  Damage
-­‐ The  damage  would  not  have  occurred  if  not  for  breach   -­‐ Direct  Consequence  Test
of  duty  of  the  defendant. Once  a  person  has  committed  a  tort,  he  will  have  to  
-­‐ Barnett  v  Chelsea  &  Kensington  Hospital  Management   bear  all  the  losses  that  arise  as  a  consequence  thereof.
Committee  (a  casualty  doctor  sent  a  patient  home  without  treatment  and   Re  Polemis  and  Furness,  Withy  &  Co  Ltd.  (Held  -­‐  the  Charterers  
the  patient  died  of  arsenic  poisoning.  Held  -­‐  While  the  doctor  was  negligent,   were  liable  for  all  the  loss  which  was  a  direct  consequence  of  their  negligence)
the  negligence  did  not  cause  the  patient’s  death  (he  would  have  died  anyway))  
-­‐ Swamy  v  Mathews  &  Anor  (Held  -­‐  the  paralysis  was  not  caused  by  the   -­‐ Reasonable  Foresight  Test
negligence  of  the  doctor  and  that  the  doctor  was  not  negligent.) The  plaintiff  will  be  entitled  to  damages  only  if  the  
damage  suffered  is,  as  a  matter  of  law,  was  not  too  
Multiple  Cause  Test
remote  from  the  original  wrongful  act.
-­‐ Courts  must  decide  on  the  facts  if  the  negligent  act  was  
Wagon  Mound  (Privy  Council  held  -­‐  the  defendants  were  not  liable  
the  one  most  likely  that  caused  the  injury.  If  unable  to   because  the  damage  was  not  reasonably  foreseeable.  i.e  that  the  fuel  oil  
do  so,  defendant  will  not  be  liable. floating  on  water  would  catch  fire  and  destroy  the  plaintiff’s  wharf)
-­‐ Wilsher  v  Essex  Area  Health  Authority  (there  were  6  main  causes    
leading  to  the  blindness  of  the  plaintiff.  It  was  very  difficult  to  ascertain  the  real   -­‐ Eggshell  Skull  Rule
cause  of  blindness.  THe  burden  lies  with  the  plaintiff  to  show  the  court  that  the   (i) Types  of  Harm
defendant’s  breach  caused  the  illness)
-­‐ Tremain  v  Pike  (The  defendant  was  not  liable  as  the  damage  that  
-­‐ McGhee  v  National  Coal  Board  (Held  -­‐  it  was  sufficient  for  the   materialized  was  difficult  in  kind  to  what  was  foreseeable)
plaintiff  to  prove  that  the  defendant’s  breach  had  materially  increased  the  risk  
of  injury  to  him) (ii) Extent  of  Harm
-­‐ Vacwell  Engineering  Co.  Ltd  v  BDH  Chemical  Ltd  (Held  -­‐  
Concurrent  Causes the  defendants  were  liable  because  the  type  of  harm  was  foreseeable  
and  it  was  relevant  that  the  degree  of  the  explosion  and  the  resultant  
-­‐ Sometimes  2  or  more  wrongful  acts  may  result  in   damage  were  unforeseeable)
damage  and  the  party  responsible  for  each  act  will  be   -­‐ Smith  v  Leech  Brain  &  Co  (The  defendant  was  held  liable  on  the  
responsible  for  the  whole  damage.  This  is  due  to  the   principle  that  a  tortfeasor  has  to  take  his  victim  as  he  finds  him)
fact  that  act  is  is  directly  liable  for  the  damage.
-­‐ Fitzgeral  v  Lane  (D1  and  D2  were  held  jointly  liable) Intervening  Acts
-­‐ Act  of  the  Plaintiff
McKew  v  Holland,  Hannen  &  Cubitts  (The  plaintiff’s  conduct  was  
unreasonable  and  was  therefore  a  novus  actus  interveniens.  It  would  unfair  to  
expect  the  defendant  to  pay  for  the  further  injuries  that  was  occasioned  by  the  
plaintiff’s  own  rashness.

-­‐ Intervention  by  a  3rd  Party

Scott  v  Shepherd  (the  defendant  who  threw  a  lighted  squib  into  market  
place  and  placed  others  in  danger  was  found  to  be  liable  on  the  basis  that  the  
initial  act  was  cause  by  the  first  defendant)

-­‐ Contributory  Negligence

This  is  where  the  plaintiff  negligently  contributes  to  
their  own  injuries  and  the  defendant  will  usually  claim  
the  defense  of  contributory  negligence.
Sayers  v  Harlow  Urban  District  Council  (Held  -­‐  it  was  reasonable  
for  the  plaintiff  to  have  tried  to  escape,  but  she  had  been  foolish  in  the  way  in  
which  she  attempted  to  do  so)

 7  -­‐  4                                                                                                                        ⓒ  Teh  Joo  Ling  All  rights  reserved

 Defenses  to  an  Action  for  Negligence

Contributory  Negligence Volenti  Non  Fit  Injuria Inevitable  Accident

-­‐ The  plaintiff’s  claim  will  be   -­‐ ‘No  wrong  can  be  done  to  a  person   -­‐ The  plaintiff  has  to  prove  that  the  
subsequently  or  proportionately   who  voluntarily  consents  to  it’ defendant  had  acted  unreasonably.
reduced  if  the  damage  suffered  was  a   -­‐ The  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  
result  of  negligence  by  the  plaintiff. 3  Main  Requirements defendant  to  show  that  he  has  acted  
a. Consent  to  the  risk. reasonably  under  the  circumstances  
-­‐ Section  12  of  the  Civil  Law  Act  1956 -­‐ If  the  plaintiff  consented  to  the   and  the  accident  would  have  
where  any  person  suffers  damage  as   risk,  the  defendant  should  not  be   happened  anyway  as  the  damage  is  
the  result  partly  of  his  own  fault  and   liable  as  the  defendant’s  breach   not  one  that  is  foreseeable  nor  can  it  
partly  of  the  fault  of  any  other   appears  to  be  justified. be  avoided  by  taking  any  reasonable  
person  or  persons,  a  claim  in  respect   -­‐ ICI  v  Shatwell  (The  claimant  and  his  brother   precautions.
of  that  damage  shall  not  be  defeated   disregarded  the  employer’s  safety  rules  while   -­‐ Stanley  v  Powell  (the  D,  who  was  a  member  of  
using  detonators  that  resulted  in  injury  and  the  
by  reason  of  the  fault  of  the  person   a  shooting  party  fired  at  the  bird  and  the  bullet  
court  upheld  the  defence  of  volenti  non  fit  injuria)
glanced  off  a  tree  and  hit  the  P.  However,  the  court  
suffering  the  damage,  but  the   held  that  the  defendant  was  not  liable  as  the  
damages  recoverable  in  respect   b. Consent  must  be  voluntary. accident  was  inevitable)

thereof  shall  be  reduced  to  such   -­‐ The  plaintiff’s  consent  must  be  
extent  as  the  Court  thinks  just  and   free  and  voluntary.
equitable  having  regard  to  the   -­‐ Bowater  v  Rowley  Regis  
claimant's  share  in  the  responsibility   Corporation  (Held  -­‐    a  person  is  said  to  be  
for  damage. voluntarily  assuming  the  risk  if  he  is  in  a  position  
where  he  has  a  choice.  He  must  have  full  
knowledge  of  the  circumstances.)
-­‐ 3  Main  Elements
a. The  plaintiff  has  a  duty  of  care  for   c. The  plaintiff  must  have  full  
himself  to  act  reasonably  so  as  to   knowledge  of  the  risk.
avoid  damage  to  himself. -­‐ How  far  does  knowledge  implies  
b. The  plaintiff  had  breached  this   consent?
duty  by  acting  unreasonably. -­‐ Dann  v  Hamilton  (Held  -­‐  Dann  was  aware  of  
c. The  act  or  omission  which  was   the  potential  danger  of  an  accident  but  she  had  
not  by  virtue  merely  of  her  knowledge,  assented  
reasonably  foreseeable  must  be   to  it.)
the  cause  of  his  injury.

-­‐ Jones  v  Lovox  Quarries  Ltd

(The  plaintiff  disobeyed  his  employer’s  instructions  
by  riding  on  the  back  of  a  traxcavator.)
-­‐ Sundram  a/l  Ramasamy  v  Arjunan  a/l  
Arumugam  &  Anor
(The  court  found  the  D  liable  in  negligence  because  if  
he  had  been  driving  at  a  slower  pace  he  could  have  a  
voided  running  over  the  plaintiff’s  leg)
-­‐ Gough  v  Thorne
(Lord  Denning  -­‐  A  very  young  child  cannot  be  guilty  of  
contributory  negligence.  Unless  he  or  she  is  of  such  
an  age  as  reasonably  to  be  expected  to  take  
precautions  for  his  or  her  own  safety.)

 7  -­‐  5                                                                                                                        ⓒ  Teh  Joo  Ling  All  rights  reserved