pbailey2711
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 months ago
#1
Hi, I need help with a problem question that I am confused about on the topic of breach of duty in tort law.
The question is discuss how a breach of duty is established in the following actions.

One of the problems is that a passenger was walking past a training ground and was hit on the head by a football that flew over the protective fence. Would this be the Football Clubs negligence of care?
0
reply
wiktoria_imrak
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 months ago
#2
Hi there. I will assume you mean "passer-by" where you said "passenger".

Consider the Neighbour Test established in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562; "You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question."

So, in order for the potential defendant to have a duty of care, there must be reasonable foresight of harm and a relationship of proximity with the potential claimant.

Contrary to what was asserted in Roe v Minister of Health [1954] 2 WLR 915 where it was said that the defendant should not be expected to protect against events which cannot be foreseen, in the above case it can be argued that the Football Club could have easily foreseen that passers-by within a certain distance of the playing fields could be hit, and would have had a duty to (for example) put up signs preventing passers-by from getting within a certain radius of the playing field.

In terms of proximity, we can use Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92. A motorcycle hit a car 50 feet away from a pregnant woman. When she saw the aftermath of the accident, she went into shock and her baby was still born. It was held that there was not enough proximity between the defendant and claimant. However in your case, it can be argued the proximity element is satisfied because the passer-by was hit directly as a consequence of walking too near to the playing field.

Hope this helps! Good luck.

(All knowledge/help is based on knowledge gained during my law degree. Please double check everything for yourself).
0
reply
pbailey2711
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 7 months ago
#3
Thank you this was very helpful!
0
reply
wiktoria_imrak
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#4
Report 7 months ago
#4
(Original post by pbailey2711)
Thank you this was very helpful!
Glad it helped
0
reply
username3689312
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report 7 months ago
#5
Give a man a fish he will eat once, teach him how to fish and he will eat forever....
1
reply
wiktoria_imrak
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#6
Report 7 months ago
#6
(Original post by james_law)
Give a man a fish he will eat once, teach him how to fish and he will eat forever....
The Neighbour Test can be used to solve a multitude of Tort Law problems. Further research on other relevant cases will probably be required, though.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (22)
17.32%
I'm not sure (3)
2.36%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (41)
32.28%
I have already dropped out (3)
2.36%
I'm not a current university student (58)
45.67%

Watched Threads

View All