Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

tort law question

can anyone explain what this following question is asking and how i should approach it thank you!!!!!!

'it is better to control liabilty by adjusting the standard of care than by restriciting the circumstances in which a duty of care arises.discuss'

Reply 1

~ o ~

what are the current restrictions on the duty of care? Effects on liability? Policy decisions? Current standard of care - effects of any adjustments? Justice issues?

You could look at the above elements - don't know if they are right though! Lol. These are what I thought of just from the top of my head

Reply 2

koota

Cheers!Iv been thinking in those lines as well but it was helpful to get further confirmation!! :smile:

Reply 3

Profesh

Clearly, a 'circumstantial' ambit for duties of care in tort is more black/white: there can be no breach if there is no duty, and it thus equates to 'strict impunity' (as was formerly applicable, for example, to barristers in courts of law); which, it might be argued, is open to abuse and justifiable only by recourse to 'policy' considerations (viz. an overriding public interest; lesser of two evils, etc.). On the other hand, the imposition of 'standards' of care in breach allows for greater discretion on the part of the judiciary albeit potentially at the expense of 'policy', contingent on the relative dispositions of the judges trying a given case. Obviously, there can be no 'right' answer to such a question; but then, that's pretty much the crux of the entire exercise.