- The main legal issue is whether P can successfully sue D for negligence. There are 4 steps to prove negligence: Duty of care (DOC), Failure to meet the required Standard of Care, Causation and Remoteness.-Negligence is a conduct that falls below the standard of care required by society for the protection of certain others against an unreasonable risk of harm.
| I –DUTY OF CARE
-The legal issue is whether D owed P a DOC. In order to prove that D owed P a DOC, P must show that at the time of D’s careless act, it was RF that harms to persons like P could result in.ORDINARY PHYSICAL INJURY+ In this case, it’s obvious that P suffered serious physical injuries such as... because [D’s careless act]. To demonstrate whether D owed P a DOCfor ordinary physical injuries, we are going to apply Lord Atkin’s Neighbour test in Donoghue v. Stevenson case: Lord Atkin’s Neighbour test said that we owe a duty of care to our neighbour, people who are so closely and directly affected by our careless act or omission, that as a reasonable person,we should be able to reasonable foresee that if we do act or fail to act,that type of person might be injured :1)If D(do sth leading to sth), it is very reasonably foreseeable that s.o likely to be injured. 2)P is a (customers, consumer, employees )who use sth, those people are D’s neighbour, they would reasonably and foreseeable the they likely to be injured if D(do sth)=>D owe P duty of care b/c they are D neighbour.
| RECOGNIZED DOC: (a) Manufacturers – customers; (b) Drivers–other drivers, passengers, pedestrians, owners of property near the road; (c) Owners/occupiers of property – people entering their property; (d) professionals – clients.
| PURELY PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES+In this case, P didn’t suffer any physical injuries. Neither her body nor her property is damaged in anyway.P just suffered serious shock and depression as a result of(sth). Hence, we should consider that whether D owed P a duty of care for purely psychological injuries? (Gifford v. Strang Patrick Sevedoring)(a)Firstly, Is it reasonably and foreseeable that P could suffer a serious mental illiness because of D(do sth), caused (sth) leading to (sth). Here it is reasonably foreseeable that P might suffer serious mental illiness because P has close family relationship with(dead people). Any reasonable person should have foresee that if their carelessness injure s.o, the family member of killed/injured person might suffer serious mental illiness.(b)Secondly, does P provide a good evidence of a legally serious psychological injury?..In this dispute,...(Doctor’s diagnosis/statement: can’t sleep, eat, lost many weights) =>2 elements satisfy, D has owed P a duty of care for purely psychological injuries
| PURE ECONOMIC LOSS+ In this case, P didn’t suffer physical or psychological injuries, we need to consider the test for pure economic loss. To demonstrate whether D owed P a DOC for pure economic injuries,we need to aplly the Perre v. Apand factors :(a)Firstly, was(the problem) reasonably foreseeable: yes/ no because(b)Next, the second factor is Legitimate business interest: Were the acts or omissions of D is accused of done to protect a legitimate business interest of D? (c)Thirdly, we discuss about the factor of Vulnerability of plaintiff: Was there any way for the P to protect themselves from the D’s negligence? Were there any steps the P could have taken to prevent the D’s negligence from harming them – or from preventing the D’s negligent act or omission altogether? In this case P can’t do anything to protect theirself from (D action). P can’t stop D(do sth)(d)The last factor is D’s knowledge of P’s vulnerability: If there is evidence that the D knew or reasonably should have known that the P was vulnerable to the D and could not protect itself, the court will be more likely to find that the D owed the P a D.O.C for PEL. In this case, D should be awared that if they(do sth) leading to sth=>P lost...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document