A Critical Analysis of the Role of the Courts in Determining Breach of Duty of Care in the Law of Tort
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2021
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
To succeed in an action for negligence under the law of torts, a plaintiff must prove
that the Defendant owed to the plaintiff a duty of care, that the Defendant had violated
that duty of care, and that the plaintiff suffered some injury as a result of the breach
of duty of care. Accordingly, before going into the question as to whether a breach of
the duty has occurred, it is necessary to first resolve the issue as to existence or
otherwise of a duty of care and the degree of such duty as well as standard of care. It
is only after this that an examination into the actions of the defendant and as to
whether a breach has occurred, would become necessary. This paper undertakes a
critical look into involvement and attitude of the court over the years in resolving the
question of breach of duty of care under the Law of Torts. Beginning with a cursory
look at duty of care and the neighbor principle as enunciated in Donoghue v.
Stevenson as well as the factors that determine existence or otherwise of duty, the
paper proceeds for purposes of proving breach of duty, to determine the expected
standard of care, the reasonable man’s test and the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur.
Then follows a consideration of what prevailing attitude of courts of law to (classes
of defendants in cases relating to) breach of duty of care is, and a conclusion that
acknowledges the continuing nature of discussions on breach of duty of care,
especially in view of the wide and flexible nature of the subject and the fact it is more
often than not, affected by numerous, sometimes unanticipated and unanticipatable
circumstances.