"No case of actionable negligence will arise unless there is a breach of duty to take care." Discuss this statement with the help of decided cases.

Question: "No case of actionable negligence will arise unless there is a breach of duty to take care." Discuss this statement with the help of decided cases. [UPJS 2016]

Find the question and answer of Law of Torts only on Legal Bites. ["No case of actionable negligence will arise unless there is a breach of duty to take care." Discuss this statement with the help of decided cases.]

Answer

The Principle that "no case of actionable negligence will arise unless there is a breach of duty to take care" is a fundamental principle in the law of negligence. This principle essentially means that a person cannot be held liable for negligence unless they have breached a duty to take care, which is owed to the person who has suffered harm.

The duty to take care is a legal obligation imposed on a person to exercise reasonable care and skill when performing a particular act or omission. The scope of the duty of care depends on the circumstances of each case, and it is determined by reference to the standard of care that a reasonable person in the same position would have exercised. In other words, the question is what a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances.

One of the landmark cases that established the duty of care in negligence is Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] AC 562. In this case, the plaintiff consumed a bottle of ginger beer that contained the decomposed remains of a snail. She suffered from shock and gastroenteritis as a result. The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the consumer to ensure that the product was safe for consumption. This case established the principle that a duty of care exists where there is reasonable foreseeability of harm.

However, the mere existence of a duty of care is not enough to establish negligence. The duty must be breached for a plaintiff to succeed in a negligence claim. The standard of care is determined by what a reasonable person in the same position would have done. In Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee, [1957] 1 WLR 582, the court held that a doctor is not negligent if he or she acts in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion. This principle has been extended to other professions, such as architects, engineers, and lawyers.

In some cases, the breach of duty may be obvious. For example, in Nettleship v. Weston, [1971] 2 QB 691, a learner driver was involved in an accident while driving with her friend, the defendant, who was an experienced driver. The court held that the defendant was negligent in failing to take reasonable care in the circumstances. The court stated that the standard of care for a learner driver is the same as that of a competent driver. In other words, the defendant should have exercised the same degree of care as a reasonable and competent driver would have exercised.

In other cases, the breach of duty may be more difficult to establish. In Paris v. Stepney Borough Council, [1951] AC 367, the plaintiff lost sight in one eye while working in a garage owned by the defendant. The plaintiff had been provided with one eye protection goggle, which he had been told to wear at all times. The court held that the defendant had breached their duty of care by failing to provide adequate eye protection. The court stated that the standard of care required the defendant to take into account the particular vulnerability of the plaintiff, who had only one eye.

The principle that "no case of actionable negligence will arise unless there is a breach of duty to take care" is a fundamental principle in the law of negligence. To establish negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed a duty of care, that the duty was breached, and that the breach caused the harm suffered by the plaintiff. The standard of care required is that of a reasonable person in the same position as the defendant. The scope of the duty of care depends on the circumstances of each case, and it is determined by reference to the reasonable foreseeability of harm.

• Law of Torts - Notes, Case Laws And Study Material
• Law Aspirants – Ultimate Test Prep Destination