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

Tort Assignment (Seeking Help Badly)

Task one

''Although the decision of the House of Lords in Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] was welcomed as a rationalisation of the law, it is now regarded as too simplistic and the so-called ''incremental'' approach is now universally used to determine the existence of a duty of care.''

Discuss this statement (1000 words)

Umm...what the hell should I write :'( I have finished reading the case fact and the principal which was established from this case and then replacing it with 'duty of care' but I need some explaination.

Task two

Until June 2009 Jeff worked as an engineer at Megabyte, manufacturers of electrical equipment. He is now a sales representative for another firm. In March 2010 he had to visit Megabyte's factory in the course of his new job. He waved to the receptionist and went through the door behind her into the workshop to speak to some of his old friends. There is a notice on the door leading into the workshop which states: ''Workshop employees only. No admittance to visitors.'' As he chatted, Jeff leant against a piece of heavy equipment, which toppled over on top of him. Kevin, the engineer to whom he was talking, tried to lift the equipment but was unable to hold it and had to let it fall back. Jeff suffered serious crushing injuries. Kevin damaged his back permanently and has had to seek a lighter job.

Megabyte had had the equipment inspected regularly by a specialist firm, which had failed to notice that it had come loose from its moorings.

Advise Megabyte as to its possible liability (1500 words)

Reply 1

eve_22

Original post by Makubex

I would look at the two tests below and talk about how the one in Anns v Merton is too simplistic (see the judgment) in comparison to the Caparo test, which is used in conjunction with the specific duty situations.

Anns v Merton LBC

- Lord Wilberforce – the position has now been reached that in order to establish that a duty of care arises in a particular situation, it is not necessary to bring the facts of that situation within those of previous situations in which a duty of care has been held to exist. Rather the question has to be approached in two stages. First one has to ask whether, as between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has suffered damage there is a sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood such that, in the reasonable contemplation of the former, carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage to the latter, in which case a prima facie duty of care arises. Secondly, if the first question is answered affirmatively, it is necessary to consider whether there are considerations which ought to negative or to reduce or limit the scope of duty or the class of person to whom it is owed or the damages to which the breach of it may give rise.

Compare this with the three stage duty of care test in Caparo

- The duty of care can now be imposed if 3 requirements are satisfied:
a) Reasonable foreseeability of damage to the claimant in question (bearing in mind the harm involved)
- D can only be held subject to duty of care if he should have foreseen both the claimant as an individual (or a member of class) and injury of the kind that actually occurred.
- The scope of duty will depend on the kind of harm that was suffered (the courts are more ready to impose responsibility to safeguard others from physical injury and damage to property than for the economic loss)
- Lord Bridge in Caparo: ...’one of the most important distinctions always to be observed lies in the law’s essentially different approach to different kinds of damage which one party may have suffered in consequence of the acts or omissions of another. It is one thing to owe a duty to avoid causing injury to the person or property of others. It is quite another to avoid causing others to suffer purely economic loss’.
- Foreseeability alone isn’t enough to create a duty of care!
b) A relationship of ‘proximity’ or ‘neighbourhood’ existing between the parties
- Essentially, ‘Proximity’ signifies the presence of a pre-tort relationship of some kind between the claimant and defendant arising prior to infliction of damage
c) A situation is one in which the courts consider it fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of a given scope on the one party for the benefit of the other
- Consider if there are there are proper grounds for imposing liability on the defendant for the harm in question?
- Same as policy? Can be invoked not just to restrict the imposition of a duty but also to supply the reason as to why it should be imposed.
- Main cases raising issues under this requirement were dominated by 2 issues:
i) Whether certain areas of activity, such as the work of public authorities or certain professionals warrants the imposition of a duty of care
ii) Whether the risk of certain kinds of harm can rightly be ascribed by means of imposition of a duty