Tags: Personal Statement College AdmissionsBusiness Plan On AgricultureProject Case Studies ConstructionAnalytic Literature EssaysIntroduction In A Research PaperDissertations And Theses Full Text DatabaseKcl Geography DissertationsStandardized Testing Essay
S.) of another's harm if one would 'never' reasonably foresee it happening. The idea of legal causation is that if no one can foresee something bad happening, and therefore take care to avoid it, how could anyone be responsible? Nwagu (1960) SC NLR 48; (1960) 3 FSC 16; Nigerian Airways Ltd V. For instance, in Palsgraf v Long Island Rail Road Co.,17 the judge decided that the defendant, a railway was not liable for an injury suffered by a distant bystander.
There are three elements that must be present for an act or omission to be negligent; (1) The defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff; (2) The defendant breached the duty of care by an act or omission; (3) The plaintiff must suffer damage as a result - be it physical, emotional or financial.
The court might decide that Freddy (the plaintiff) was owed a duty of care by Elvis (the defendant) if they find that what happened to Freddy was in the realm of reasonable forseeability - any harm that could be caused to a 'neighbour' by Elvis' actions that he could reasonably have expected to happen. From this legal precedent, I would say that Elvis harmed his neighbour, Freddy, negligently, because he did closely and directly affect his well-being by not taking into account what might reasonably happen when he carelessly dropped some bricks. Katherine Docks (1865), where the plaintiff was walking past the warehouse of the defendant when he was struck on the head with six bags of sugar.
The test of breach of duty is generally objective, however, there may be slight variations to this.
Where there is divided opinion within a profession as to the appropriate course of action in a particular situation then a defendant is not to be treated as in breach of duty by following one body of opinion rather than the other: "I myself would prefer to put it this way, that he is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art .
Negligence is a type of tort or delict (also known as a civil wrong). These details have not, however, stopped the case from becoming the source of extensive debate in American tort law. 27 Barkway v South Wales Transport (1950) 1 All ER 392. 29 Henderson v Henry Jenkins & Sons  3 All ER 756; Ward v Tesco Stores  1 All ER 219.
However, the concept is sometimes used in criminal law as well. 19 She could have sued the man or the conductor himself, but they did not have as much money as the company. Negligence is a tort which is the breach of a duty of care imposed by common or statute law, resulting in damage to the complainant.2 From this general definition, 3 essential elements combine to make the tort of negligence actionable. These include: (i) There must exist a duty to take care owed to the complainant by the defendant. Proving a case for negligence can potentially entitle the injured plaintiff to compensation for harm to their body, property, mental well-being, financial status, or intimate relationships. However, because negligence cases are very fact-specific, this general definition does not fully explain the concept of when the law will require one person to compensate another for losses caused by accidental injury. Negligence is generally defined as conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another individual from a foreseeable risk of harm. Often, in litigation, where two defendants are equally liable but one is more able to satisfy a judgment, he will be the preferred defendant and is referred to as the "deep pocket." 20 (1967) 1 AC 617. Through civil litigation, if an injured person proves that another person acted negligently to cause his injury, he can recover damages to compensate for his harm. The plaintiff, Palsgraf, was hit by scales that fell on her as she waited on a train platform. A train conductor had run to help a man into a departing train. The man was carrying a package as he jogged to jump in the train door. The conductor mishandled the passenger or his package, causing the package to fall. Legal Causation or Remoteness Sometimes factual causation is distinguished from 'legal causation' to avert the danger of defendants being exposed to, in the words of Cardozo, J., "liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class".16 It is said a new question arises of how remote a consequence a person's harm is from another's negligence. We say that one's negligence is 'too remote' (in England) or not a 'proximate cause' (in the U. terminology (to do with the chain of events between the action and the injury) is the same as the 'proximity test' under the English duty of care (to do with closeness of relationship).