TORT'S LAW

Tort's Law



Tort's Law

Introduction

The purpose behind this paper is to assess cases which can lead to remedial legal efforts due to negligence, I will analyse the circumstances that lead to such situations the paper will focus on answering In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] Lord Atkin referred to 'acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour'. However, n Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987] Lord Goff stated: 'the common law does not impose liability for what are called pure omissions'.

Discussion

There have been multiple cases which have resulted in Tort in Donoghue v Stevenson, in which Mrs Donoghue found a snail in her ginger beer that caused her to get ill she was successful in suing the manufacturer. Tort Laws solve social wrongs by solving issues between people that can lead to severe conditions.This brings us to the main element under discussion, it was during the Donoghue case that Lord Atkin's claimed acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour'. Which was a fundamental development in Tort law and there are a number of cases that needed the presence of such a law like; In the case of Murphy v Brentwood House of Lords the case basically deals with another form of negligence in which the local authorities approved a building's design, however once implemented the designs had caused damage to the house. Anns v Merton London Borough Council. Similarly Byrne v Heller and Partners Ltd [1964] the issue that arose was when HB lost money through the company and had to liquidate itself.The case was concerned regarding the liability of the authorities regarding the lessee of a building since it failed to ensure the building complied with deposited plans. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman, the case focuses on negligent misstatements by auditors.

It was only later on that much deliberation was done over what Lord Atkin's called the 'acts of omissions', certain interpretations lead to believe that the term signifies pre tort relations that place an obligation to act and failure in doing so might arise in a breach of duty .For example a mother has a duty to protect her child and so is a teacher for her pupil. Out of pre existing obligations, duty to act is not part of tort of negligence.

Another exception to the rule of omission in the case is when people voluntarily take on the well being of others, this needs to be considered in an appropriate manner. According to Lord Keith who stated regarding voluntary exceptions 'it depends on the degree of closeness between the two parties and if there exists a crucial direct relationship there is a duty to care which can lead to acts of omissions based on negligence for instance, In Smith V Bush (1990) where the surveyor for mortgages had a duty to care for the purchaser of a house and since the reports provided were negligent,

Another exception to the rule of omission is ...