Monday, 21 November 2016


  The law of Negligence is one vast area of law, with a lot of facets and areas that are yet to be litigated upon. To establish that a person, the tortfeasor, has been negligent and so claim damages for injury, the plaintiff must prove that:
(a) The defendant owes him a duty of care
(b) The defendant has breached that duty and
(c)  Damages have occurred.
    For there to be a right of action, these three elements must be proved. But the question that arises is to what extent the court would impute a duty of care. That is, who really is your neighbour?. the answer seems to be, persons who are reasonably foreseeable to be affected by our acts or omissions that they should be put into contemplation when taking such actions. This leaves a wide definition of who a neighbour is. For instance, if A pushes B and B drops a bag of explosives which destroys a lamp post and hits C?, Is C reasonably foreseen to suffer damage as a result of As action?. That is, does A owe C a duty of care? given that A did not know or is not reasonably expected to know or foresee that a mere shove to B would result in damages to C miles away. See PALSGRAF V. LONG ISLAND RAILWAY CO.( Let us not forget that the law of negligence was birthed by the tort of

No comments:

Post a comment