Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable person is never negligent, thus the degree of care required is that of a reasonable person(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The creation of tort of negligence is a very important tool by which gaps in the law is filled. Often, actions require that some wrongful intent be present in the mind of the actor. However, intent is a difficult thing to prove(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). It is against this background that this paper is structured around four aims. Firstly, it is examines the background of the duty of care .Secondly it studies duty of care for negligent acts historical back ground; doctrine of Reasonable Foresee ability and proximity. Thirdly, the paper will discuss Duty of Care for Negligent advice. Finally, it will analysis. Significantly, this paper will contribute to a developed understanding of three essentials duty of care, standard of care and sufficient connection in law.
The negligence is breaches of civil Law distinguish as the Tort Law. There are three basics where plaintiff must establish ‘on the Balance of the Probability in organize to be successful in act in neglect. In another word, defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, defendant fail to meet the standard of care, and there must be adequate link in law involving the defendant is action and the harm. Moreover, there are cases where injuries arise without intent to cause them, but which necessitates compensation or correction by the person causing the injury, albeit negligently based on justice and equity. The deliberateness of the act shows the degree of moral corruption or perversity of the actor. However, negligent acts are just a degree higher than accident. Like accidents, simple negligence is sometimes unavoidable. Everyone is bound to be negligent once and while. The only difference is that some negligent acts are lucky enough not to result to injury. To punish each and every negligent act that results to injury is to reward those who are lucky enough for their negligent acts not to result to injury. It becomes more problematic when a person considers liability imposed on persons other than those who committed the breach.
3.0 Duty of Care for Negligent Acts
3.1 Historical Approach
Before 1932 there was no generalization duty of care in negligence. The tort did exist and was applied in particular circumstance where judge make decision that duty should be owe, for example road accidents bailment or dangerous goods. In the Donoghue v Stevenson  AC 562, Lord Atikin attempted to lay down general principles which would cover all the situations where courts had already held that there could be liability for negligence. He said: "The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document