What Is Meant by Proximity in Tort Law

Negligence is a common law tort developed by case law. Although it is a modern offence, it is the most common. In order to prove liability for negligence, the plaintiff must show, after weighing the probability, that: the defendant had a duty of care, breached that duty by failing to meet the required standard of care, and therefore the plaintiff suffered damage that is not too small. There was a duty of care. It was foreseeable that the applicant would be harmed if her identity was revealed and there was sufficient proximity because the police had assumed responsibility for the applicant. The case was singled out by Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] because the plaintiff had been identified as a potential victim. In addition, there was another political factor that should be weighed against the political arguments in favour of immunity at Hill, and that is that it is desirable to encourage whistleblowers and provide them with adequate protection. Proximity is about relationships.

Hence the expression “a relationship of proximity”. Proximity relationships result from behavior and interactions. Not all relationships are considered close relationships at common law. In Galli-Atkinson v. Seghal, a woman got closer when she arrived at the scene of a car accident in which her daughter was fatally injured and saw her daughter`s body in the morgue within two hours. In Taylor v. At Nova Limited, the plaintiff was less successful when she witnessed the death of her mother three weeks after an accident. Relevant to LW-ENG and LW-IRL If there is one area of the corporate and business law program that students struggle with, it is the tort of negligence.

The examiners` reports indicate that students do not fully understand the subject matter – particularly the various elements that a plaintiff must prove in order for the defendant to be found negligent. This article discusses each of the key elements one by one, but we`ll start by explaining why the crime has grown. Offences are violations of the law that one party suffers at the hands of another. Negligence is a form of tort that has developed because certain types of loss or damage occur between parties who do not have a contract between them, and therefore there is nothing for one party to sue the other. In Donoghue v. Stevenson in 1932, the House of Lords ruled that a person should be able to sue another person who has caused him loss or damage, even if there is no contractual relationship. Donoghue received a bottle of ginger beer from a friend that she had bought for her. After drinking half of the contents, she noticed that the bottle contained a rotting snail and suffered nervous shock.

Under contract law, Donoghue could not sue the manufacturer because her friend was a party to the contract and she was not. However, the House of Lords decided to create a new legal principle stating that everyone has a duty of care to their neighbour, which allowed Donoghue to successfully sue the manufacturer for damages. Let`s consider a hypothetical case and use it to demonstrate how the tort of negligence works. Harry is involved in an accident in which his car is hit by a car driven by Alex. As a result of the accident, Harry broke his leg and was unable to work for two months. Can Harry sue Alex for damages? At first glance, the answer seems obvious. Harry was injured because Alex got into his car, so it seems fair that he can sue him. But think about the situation from Alex`s point of view, is it fair that Harry can sue him like this? People have accidents every day – should everyone be able to sue each other for every little incident? If that is the case, the courts would be overwhelmed with cases. Fortunately, to prove negligence and claim damages, a plaintiff must prove a number of things in court. They are: Lord Steyn:. A withdrawal from the Hill principle would have negative effects on the application of the law.

In this case, there is no need to imagine cases of gross negligence on the part of the police that are not protected by certain crimes and that could be beyond the scope of Hill`s principle. It would be unwise to try to predict exactly what unusual cases might occur. I`m certainly not saying they couldn`t happen. But such exceptional cases outside of Hill`s principle must be taken into account and determined if and when they occur. A lack of sufficient proximity was also noted. The second requirement is proximity. Proximity refers to the relationship between plaintiff and defendant. In most cases, there are few proximity problems. Proximity is generally granted when the harm to the plaintiff is reasonably foreseeable, such as where the defendant directly caused physical harm to the plaintiff or his property. However, if the plaintiff`s damage was not directly caused by the defendant`s actions or is economic or psychiatric in nature, proximity may be crucial.

As we have already seen, the concept of due diligence was created in the Donoghue case. The House of Lords has stated that every person has a duty of care to his neighbour. The Lords added that the term “neighbour” actually means “persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I should reasonably regard them as such”. This is a very broad (and complicated) definition that could encompass almost anyone – if it were still operational today, the courts would certainly be overwhelmed with cases. Subsequent cases Anns v. Merton London Borough Council (1977) and Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990) somewhat narrowed the definition by introducing “proximity” and “fairness”. Proximity simply means that the parties must be “close enough” that it is “reasonably foreseeable” that one party`s negligence would cause loss or damage to the other. Fairness means that it is “fair, just and reasonable” for one party to have an obligation to another. What does this mean for Harry? I think you will agree that Alex owes him a duty of care. There is enough proximity (i.e. Alex got into Harry`s car); It is reasonably foreseeable that a collision between the cars could cause injury to Harry, and it seems fair, fair and reasonable that Alex should owe a duty of care to Harry (and indeed all other road users).

The neighbourhood principle is a proximity test, i.e. whether the defendant should reasonably have foreseen the likelihood of harm to the plaintiff. It is used to determine whether a fee is due in a new situation where the claimant has suffered damage or loss. The High Court found that there was no duty of care, but the Court of Appeal held that there was sufficient proximity. However, the House of Lords disagreed and reaffirmed the general principle against police liability set out in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989]. At trial it was found that the defendant had no duty of care, on appeal it was held that the defendant had done so, but the House of Lords set aside this decision. The House of Lords has decided that the law should evolve gradually and by analogy with established categories of negligence. Existing precedents must be taken into account and, if they cannot be adapted to the case, a general test must be carried out.

Three elements must be taken into account: first, reasonable prediction of damage; secondly, sufficient proximity of the relationship between the applicant and defence counsel; and three times it is fair, just and reasonable to impose an obligation. If all three parties are met, a duty of care may be imposed. The case predates the Caparo test. A motorcyclist was driving negligently, crashed into a car and was killed. The claimant was in a safe place and did not witness the accident, but decided to go and see what had happened. The applicant suffered shock and miscarriage after seeing blood and debris on the street. The plaintiff claimed damages from the defendant, the motorcyclist`s estate. If the courts continue to try to find proximity in the legal provisions, the plaintiffs` claims will continue to be summarily suppressed.

Whether the courts have really focused on what the parties have done, what their legitimate expectations are, whether there is trust, etc. Claimants could persuade the courts to establish a prima facie duty of care. Laws do not create close relationships. Statutes can be the justification or catalyst for the parties to enter into a relationship. The courts must then examine the relationship thus established to determine whether it is a close relationship. However, a review of the legal provisions will not assist the court in answering this question. The plaintiff need only prove that the damage was a direct consequence of the defendant`s breach of his duty of care. In other words, there is a chain of causation from the defendant`s actions to the plaintiff`s loss or damage.

A simple test called the “but for” test is applied. The plaintiff only has to prove that the defendant would not have suffered the loss or damage if it had not been “but for the defendant`s actions.” If there is more than one possible cause of loss or damage, the defendant will only be liable if it can be proven that his actions are the most likely cause.