Duty of Care and Negligence - Essay Example

Duty of Care and Negligence Essay Word Count Affiliation: Legal systems are critical to the functionality of any given society. In particular, issues of duty and responsibility are fundamental to address especially when one party causes harm or injury to another. In this respect, the concept of duty of care and its connection to negligence serves a key role in the society. Tort law provides for legal processes following acts of negligence that exhibit duty of care. The underlying liability in negligence, however, is limited because duty of care must be justified before the courts. Acts of negligence could result in many different forms of harm or injury. Under the common law, acts of negligence could result in physical injury, psychological harm, or economic loss1. These outcomes equate to a given level of liability by the defendant to the claimant. In order to hold the defendant liable for negligence, however, the claimant has to meet the court’s threshold as far as justifying duty of care is concerned. Failure to evidence duty of care subsequently results in the collapse of the case. Duty of care is a legal obligation that is highly influenced by the relationship between the defendant and the claimant2. In other words, both parties must exhibit a given and acceptable form of relationship under the relevant legal provisions. The relationship between the defendant and the claimant forms the basis of the aforementioned legal obligation. Legal provisions for negligence under tort law hold duty of care as the first and critical element that evidences negligence3. Although there are two other elements in that regard, duty of care forms the primary basis of pursuing negligence cases. In this respect, the concept of duty of care is critical to the activities and operations of any court that deals with negligence cases. Notably, this concept is influential to courts in limiting liability in negligence. Over the years, tort law has evolved to become and more sophisticated. In the same regard, courts have found ways to limit liability in negligence especially under the concept of duty of care. Justifying defendant’s liability to the plaintiff is a critical process. The first aspect of duty of care that courts use to limit liability in negligence is assessing how the duty of care is established4. The establishment of duty of care brings into perspective the relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff. In order to evidence negligence, the claimant must demonstrate the defendant’s obligation in the case. The existence of some form of obligation means that the parties involved in the case must have interacted in one way or another. Moreover, such an interaction must demonstrate that the defendant failed to observe his/her duty of care, subsequently harming, injuring, or causing loss to the claimant. While interaction, obligation, and duty of care are relatively easy to address, the courts make this process difficult because both the law and the court must recognize the relationships therein. One of the ways courts recognize defendant-plaintiff relationships under duty of care is by using precedents5. In other words, precedents establish the duty of care for which the claimant wants the court to hold the defendant liable. Over and above use of precedents, case law recognizes defendant-claimant relationships that develop outside precedent establishments but within the legal provisions for duty of care6. What this means is that principles of case law also establish duty of care within relevant provisions adopted by the courts. This constitutes the second way through duty of care is realized. However, the process of establishing duty of care based on case law is critical to the imposition of liabilities. This legal practice allows courts to limit liability in negligence under the concept of duty of care. Liability in negligence further relies on testable principles that make it effective for courts to limit liability. Once the relationship between the defendant and the claimant is established, the next aspect of duty of care is to show that the harm, injury, or loss caused by the defendant to the plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable7. In other words, the negligent act or conduct of the defendant must pass the test of foreseeability. Without showing that the harm was reasonably foreseeable, the underlying liability becomes critically limited. The courts’ ability to limit liability is not only rooted in reasonable foreseeability of the harm, but also in the link between the harm and the defendant’s conduct. In other words, the foreseeability of the harm must be as a result of the defendant’s conduct. Liability becomes embedded in this requirement, thus limiting the adoptability of the case by the court. In the event that reasonable foreseeability lacks to connect to the conduct of the defendant, the defendant’s liability becomes limited. Foreseeable harm and the conduct of the defendant constitute the first part of the three-way system that courts use to limit liability in negligence. The second principle that courts employ relates to the defendant-claimant relationship and the proximity between the two parties at the time of the alleged negligence8. Courts require that allegations of negligence be accompanied by a relational proximity. As earlier mentioned, parties to a case of negligence must have interacted in one way or another. The case law principle of proximity between parties allows courts to limit liability in negligence. Failure to evidence relationship of proximity subject to the provisions of duty of care leaves the defendant with little or no liability to the claimant. In earlier years, defendant-claimant relationship was enough to render the defendant liable for negligence even without the principle of proximity9. Today, the proximity principle goes beyond the existence of relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff. It is the relationship proximity, under duty of care, which allows courts to limit liability in negligence. The final principle of duty of care that allows courts to limit liability in negligence is the requirement that liability imposition must be fair, just, and reasonable10. In other words, courts are required to impose liabilities without causing injustice to the defendant. The critical factor to deal with in this principle is the measure of fairness, justice, and reasonability. By considering the aspects in liability imposition, courts can significantly limit liability in negligence. Under case law, fairness has been defined in diverse and dynamic ways. Most importantly, the use of the concept of fairness varies from one case to another. In this respect, precedents that courts rely on are many and different as far as fairness in liability imposition is concerned. Moreover, defining fairness also depends on the environment or setting within which negligence is said to occur. In most cases, settings or environments that exhibit duty of care encompass employers and their employees, doctors and their patients, road users and their counterparts, solicitors and their clients, or producers and their consumers11. In light of the parties outlined above, concepts of fairness, justice, and reasonability are critical to account for. When each of the noted categories is considered, fair, just, and reasonable imposition of liability gives rise to a relatively difficult case. The objective of the court is serve justice to both the defendant and the plaintiff. The three-factor combination, therefore, gives courts a way to limit liability in negligence, citing fairness, justice, and/or reasonability concerns. In order to impose liability in negligence, duty of care must always be evidenced. Most importantly, courts must adhere to the relevant procedures that address precluding public policies. Caparo V Dickman addresses the comprehensiveness of duty of care, taking into account the principles that establish the primary basis of liability imposition12. Negligence arises from a series of events, all of which must justify duty of care in the event that a plaintiff suffers harm at the hands of the defendant. The occurrence of any loophole within the process of justifying negligence critically affects the case. Notably, areas that allow courts to limit liability in negligence fall within the established duty of care legal provisions. References Caparo Industries plc. v Dickman [1990] UKHL Dickson, B., Human Rights and the United Kingdom Supreme Court, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 Harpwood, V. H., Modern Tort Law, Taylor & Francis, London, 2008. Holmes v Alfred McAlpine Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd [2006] EWHC 110 (QB); [2006] 3 Costs L.R. 466 Holt v Edge [2007] EWCA Civ 602; [2007] 97 B.M.L.R. 74 (CA (Civ Div)) Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC 398 Slessor v Vetco Gray UK Ltd [2007] Rep. L.R. 83 (OH) Steele, J., Tort Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010. Thai Trading Co v Taylor [1998] Q.B. 781 Read More