Duty, Breach and Damage explanations

Hi, I was wondering if people could put their basic explanations for these three things, just want to see what everyone else puts.

My very simple (not examination friendly) explanations would be as follows:

Duty of care - an obligation not to cause the other person injury, e.g. because of a special relationship, because the Caparo v Dickman criteria are met, because there is a clear, pre-established duty of care in such a situation (for example doctors to patients, road users to other road users), etc.

Breach - where the defendant has not met the standard of the reasonable person, taking into account the characteristics of the defendant (to see what standard they must meet, e.g. the reasonable doctor) and the various risk factors which raise or lower the standard, such as likelihood of risk, whether it was an emergency, etc.

Damage - the harm caused to the claimant, be it physical damage, psychiatric damage or property damage.

Thank you, anyway you could make the examination friendly?