Answer questions about two cases - Essay Example

Negligence defines breach of care by a party to another, leading to harm. The plaintiff must prove different elements in order to win a case on negligence. One of the elements, forming the first criterion to tort of negligence is existence of duty of care. Duty of care is pervasive and involves moral perspective to effects of one’s act, of omission or commission, unless a justification exists for the act. Every person therefore owes people in his or her environment a duty of care for acts that he may commit or omit and the ability to foresee is the key determinant.

The case of Commissioners of Customs and Excise v. Barclays Bank plc [2006] UKHL 28, [2006] 3 WLR 1 explains this. In the case, Lord Hoffmann noted that foreseebility is sufficient for physical injury, though not for financial loss (Maclntyre 329). The case of Donoghue v. Stevenson also explains the extent of definition of duty of care. In the case, the plaintiff had consumed a beer that her friend bought before realizing remains of a snail in the beer. She suffered shock and stomachache and the courts held that a person owes others a duty of care to other people for harm that can be foreseen (Sagar, Mead and Bampton 2009, p. 16- 18). The criteria that must be satisfied for successful claim in tort of negligence also include proof of breach of the duty of care.

The defendant must have failed in the responsibility to ensure safety of the plaintiff and the circumstance must be such that the injury could not be suffered had the defendant ensured the duty of care. It must also be such that no explanation can be offered for the event into the harm. In addition, the defendant must have had authority over the event into the harm but failed to ensure proper control. Another condition that the criterion must satisfy is existence of a loss due to the negligent act.

Loses such as physical injury and associated financial loses must be identified and must be incident to the suffered harm. While the