Negligence, Psychiatric Loss, Economical Loss & Occupiers Liability

In this leaflet I allow for describe the law of scorn and occupiers liability, economic passing game and psychiatric loss. Negligence is when roundbody has a job of c argon and that indebtedness is prisonbreaked. Negligence is split into 3 parts. Duty of heraldic bearing In certain situations, a barter of c be is owed to another person. For face, a surgeon owes a duty of care to who invariably they operate on.The existence of a duty of care is established by the Neighbour Test which was brought in by Lord Aitken after the Donoghue v Stevenson case In the Donoghue v Stevenson case, Ms Donoghue was bought a ginger beer by a friend, and drank it, unkn bear to her, on that allude was a snail in that ginger beer. She wanted to claim for damages hardly she did not buy the ginger beer so she couldnt. instead, she sued the manuf diddleurer, rightfully claiming they owed her a duty of care. This is how the neighbor test was born. The neighbor test states The expression that yo u are to love your dwell becomes m law you must not pervert your neighbour and the lawyers question Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must grapple tenable care to avoid turn of eventss or omissions which you can fairly promise would be seeming to injure your neighbour. Who then in law is my neighbour? The reaction seems to be persons who are so closely and directly moved(p) by my act that I ought reasonably to hand them in manifestation as world so affected when I am order my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question. * Lord Aitken, 1932 (Donoghue vs. Stevenson) Reasonable foreseeability is when it is healthy to assume that in that location ordain be flaw/harm in a certain situation. This is dress hat explained using Jolley vs. Sutton London Borough Council. In this case, a 14 year old boy was playing on a sauceboat which had not been moved by the Council, the boat fell on the boy and he was paralyzed. It is obvious that the Council knew that by leaving a boat there and not moving on it, chelaren would come and play on/near it, and it would be reasonably foreseeable that there would be injury/harm or even a fatality.Not Reasonably Foreseeable is when the likelihood of injury/harm or damage is low and cannot be foreseen. An example of this is in Bourhill vs. Young 1943, this case is when a motorcyclist (Young) was going too unfaltering and crashed into a car and consequently died. A pregnant woman (Bourhill) was almost 50 yards away when the crash happened and she heard it, she came over to see what had happened and apothegm the blood running overmatch the road and suffered from shock, causing her baby to be stillborn.Although the actions of Young consequently resulted in the stillborn, the Court decided that he didnt owe her a duty of care as it was not reasonably foreseeable that a pregnant woman would be affected by negligent driving, unless the motorcyclist did owe the car driver a duty of care (along with other road users). Breach of Duty A breach of duty is when you do not uphold your duty of care that you owe towards somebody and because of that an incident happens causing harm, loss or even closing is some cases.A breach is established by the Reasonable Man test, which is a test which identifies whether you start interpreted actions which a reasonable man would not. separate things are evolven into account such as the likelihood of injury, when the likely hood of injury is high then more caution is readed, this is best represented in Bolton vs St unity 1951 where a cricketer hit a thump 100 yards over a 17 foot high repugn and hit the claimant who was standing in the road. A ball had only ever been struck outside the ground 6 times over a 30 year history of the club and nets had been put up nearly the ground.The House of Lords held the facts and decided that there was no substantial insecurity of injury. Risks of respectable injury is another thing which sho uld be taken into account, where there is a substantially higher risk of serious injury, more caution is required, for example, in a conk outing environment, employers should take more care towards employees who are inexperienced, young, or disabled. This has been seen in Paris vs Stepney BC 1951 where a man who only had one eye lost his only remaining eye due to omission of his employer. Social value of the suspects action is took into consideration in certain cases.If the object of the actions took by the defendant is of value to society, abnormal risk is justified. In wolfram vs Hertfordshire 1954, a victim was trapped under a vehicle at the scene of a road accident, A enceinte duty dump was needed to lift the vehicle simply the vehicle used to jinx it was unavailable. Whilst holding the jack on place on a vehicle unsuitable for the transportation, a fireman injured his back. The fireman sued his employers for negligence but failed in his actions because the social value s of the defendants action were valuable as lives were at risk. Last of all, Cost of avoiding harm needs to be taken into account.The controversy that a danger was too costly to eliminate is not a legitimate argument. However courts do recognise a balance betwixt the risk and the cost of eliminating it. If the risk is remote and the precautions needed to be taken are very expensive, the defendants lack of action by not doing anything may be justified. The greater the risk is and the more likely it is, the consideration is disposed towards the cost of the eliminating measures which the defendants may pee-pee taken to safeguard. The decision in these dowry relies on whether the courts decide that the defendants had acted reasonable in the given circumstances.This is displayed in Latimer v AEC 1953, where a factory was flooded and the floor became extremely slippery, the defendants mopped out the prodigality and put sawdust down. They did not quite have enough sawdust to cover t he on the whole floor and the claimant slipped on an uncovered pat and broke his leg. The claimant argued that the factory should have been closed. Despite this, the court decided that the defendants had done everything they could have done that was reasonable in the circumstances, therefore the claimant failed in his actions. Damage/CausationIf it is found that a defendant owes a duty of care, and that duty of care they owe has been breached, they still need prove that the breach caused the damage/injury/loss. there must be a link between the breach of duty and the loss occurred. This is the rule of causation, which is split into 2 sections, causations in fact, and causation in law. To decide whether the defendants negligence caused the claimants loss/injury in fact, the test is normally the but for test, for example but for the existence of the defendants action, would the claimant have suffered a loss?If the answer is yes then the defendants actions is an actual cause of the lo ss/injury. This is demonstrated best in the case of Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital 1969. One morning, three night watchmen called into a hospital on their way plate from work. They told the nurse that they had been vomiting violently after drinking tea. She contacted the duty doctor, and he told them to go see their own doctors. A few hours subsequent on, one of the 3 men died. It was notice that the tea had been spiked with arsenic and had caused the three men to vomit.The main point is that the death would have still occurred even if the doctor had admitted him into the hospital. So the doctors actions was not the cause of death as nothing could have been done to save the man as the arsenic had already been ingested. it cannot be said that but for the doctors action the man would have died. In cases where there are multiple causes which have contributed to the loss, applying the but for test is very unenviable to prove. For example, in McGhee vs National Coal Board 1 973, the claimant worked in brick kilns, in calefactory and filthy conditions.Because there were no washing facilities available, he had to cycle home in dirty clothes. When he contracted dermatitis, he sued his employers. The medical severalise could not prove that washing facilities would prevent his catching dermatitis. The House of Lords held that he was entitled to recover damages on the grounds that his employers had significantly increase the risk of the claimant contracting the disease. Once it is established that the defendant is reasonable in fact it should then be decided whether it is recognised in law.This will be decided on one of the following elements Remoteness of damage, the defendants act may have caused damage, but he will not be found liable if the damage caused is too remote. Therefore, if the damage caused is not of the kind, lawsuit or class foreseeable, then the defendant will not be liable for damage. This is seen in The Wagonmound 1961. In this case, t he defendants negligently allowed oil to spill from their get off into the Sydney harbour. The defendants did not realise that oil can burn on water. 00 yards away, the claimants were doing some welding repair on their wharf, they asked whether it would be safe to continue with their work and they was given the go ahead. Two days later, some molten admixture fell into the oil and it set alight, destroying the claimants wharf. It was held at the fact that the defendants were not liable for the damage as a reasonable man could not have reasonably foreseen that the wharf would be damaged by the negligent act. Occupiers indebtedness Act 1957 is an act which states the duty of care which is owed by an occupier. Section 2 (1) of the act reads The common duty of care is defined in . 2(2) as a duty to take such care as in all circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the offers for which he is invited or permitted to be there. This means that an occupier must take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of everyone who is using their premises for the purpose they have been invited or permitted to be there. Section 2 (3) (a) makes specific pabulum for pip-squeakren, stating that a high degree of care must be displayed when child visitors are on the premises. An example of this is Glasgow Corp vs Taylor 1992.In this case a child died after eating some poisonous berries from a bush in a public park. The defendant was aware that the berries were poisonous but did not put up a fence or anything to stop the berrier from being picked. Section 2 (3 (b) makes specific provisions for professionals. This section allows occupiers to show a lower degree of care towards professionals who are on the premises regarding to risk/hazards related to their profession. In Roles v Nathan 1963, 2 chimney sweeps were killed by hundred monoxide poisoning when sealing up a flue in a persons chimney. D was not liable as the risk was related/committed with their profession.If the risk was not related to their profession, for example if they fell through a rotting floorboard (Woolin vs British Celanese Ltd 1966), the outcome would have been very different. The act protects lawful visitors, which include invitees, licensees, contractual visitors and statutory visitors. An occupier is anyone who is control of the premises. There is no requirement for the occupier to have any legal/ faithful interest in the premises. Premises do not just include, place down and buildings, but also includes any fixed or moveable structure, heavy vehicle, vessel or aircraft.Psychiatric loss Nervous shock is a full term used by lawyers to signify a medically recognised psychiatric unhealthiness/disorder. Psychiatric damage covers all appropriate types of mental infirmity, neurosis and temperament change. It is distinguished from emotional grief/distress which undivideds may suffer when soulfulness is injured/killed, although separating the two is quite difficult. Claims for emotional distress/grief are invalid unless it leads to a positive psychiatric nausea such as anxiety neurosis, reactive depression or a animal(prenominal) ailment such as a heart attack.Three categories of Claimants (C) were established in sinlessness v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire 1999 * (a) C who suffers psychiatric illness as a result of having been physically injured by the Ds (defendants) negligence * (b) C who are put in physical danger, but who in fact suffer only psychiatric illness cognise as primary victims. * (c) C who suffer psychiatric illness as a result of witnessing death or injury of flying victim with whom they have a close kindred of love and affection- known as secondary victims. Economic lossEconomic loss is financial loss to an individual which has resulted from death, injury, disability, damage to property or destruction caused by a terce party. An economic loss represents money lost i n wages or profits lost in regards to business. The old law for economic loss stated that there must be a CONTRACTUAL relationship between two parties for one to be held liable, the new law was amend to ensure that they just need a relationship somewhere down the lines for them to be held liable. If an individual relies on someones skill in doing something, then they are liable for economic loss if they do not uphold their duty of care.In Chaudhry v Prabhakar 1988, C asked the D, a friend, to find them a car, they brought back a car which was apparently roadworthy and had not been in any accidents, the car was later found to be unroadworty and had been in an accident. This is known as surmisal of care, where a duty/responsibility is assumed between two individuals/organisations. In this business I have discovered the main aspects of negligence and what they entail, examples of what I have discovered include the reasonable man test, the neighbour test rule, assumption of responsibi lity, and finally the three categories of psychiatric loss.