Law Unit 2 AS

• The objective standard considers what a reasonable person would do or not do in the same circumstances, thus disregarding the capacities and characteristics of the particular actor.
• Duties can be imposed by statute (e.g., Health and Safety at Work Act) or through case law (e.g., Donoghue v Stevenson).
• Failure to meet the standard set by the objective duty of care constitutes negligence.
• There is no general duty to take reasonable care not to injure others, but there are exceptions where such duties arise from statute or common law.
• The objective standard focuses on community standards and expectations of appropriate behavior.
• Damage or loss suffered by the claimant as a result of the defendant's negligence
• The defendant must have owed the claimant a duty of care.
• In determining whether an individual has breached their duty of care, it is necessary to consider both the nature of the risk and the likelihood that harm will occur as a result of the defendant's actions.
• If the risk is obvious but unlikely, there may be no liability if the claimant could have avoided the damage by taking simple precautions.
• A duty to take care is owed when there is an identifiable relationship between two parties, such as landlord-tenant, employer-employee, doctor-patient, occupier-visitor, and motorist-pedestrian.
• A defendant who takes all possible steps to avoid causing injury cannot be held liable even if they fail to prevent the harm from occurring.
• In cases where no specific relationship exists, the court may impose a duty based on public policy considerations.
• Negligence is defined as an act that falls below the required standard of conduct expected from a reasonably prudent individual under similar circumstances.
• Negligence involves failing to act with due care and attention towards others' safety.
• A breach of duty occurs when there has been a failure to exercise due care and skill towards another person's safety.
• Negligent acts must cause damage to another's property or personal injury.
• Damage caused by an act that was not intended to harm someone else may still result in liability if it was reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the defendant's actions.
• Breach of duty refers to failing to take necessary precautions against foreseeable risks.
• Negligent acts must fall below the required standard of conduct expected of an ordinary prudent person under similar circumstances.
• A breach of duty that causes damage or loss to another person
• Negligent acts or omissions that fall below the required standard of conduct
• The defendant breached their duty of care towards the claimant.
• The breach caused damage or injury to the claimant.
• A defendant's actions may still be considered negligent even if they were acting within their own subjective belief that it was safe to act as they did.
• The defendant was responsible for causing the harm to the claimant.
• A claimant who has suffered loss due to the defendant's breach of duty will need to prove causation between the breach and their loss.
• An act or failure to act that falls short of the expected level of care
• In determining whether a breach has occurred, courts consider factors like the nature of the risk involved, the likelihood of harm occurring, and the seriousness of potential consequences.
• A person who suffers damage due to another's negligent act may be entitled to compensation under tort law.
• A person who causes injury through gross negligence can still owe a duty of care under certain circumstances.
• Negligent acts can include omissions (failing to do something) or commissions (doing something).
• Negligent acts causing physical injuries require proof of causation between the act and the injury.
• To establish liability for negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty of care towards them, the defendant breached this duty, and the breach caused the plaintiff's injury.
• Causation requires showing that the defendant's action was more than just one possible cause of the injury.
• Negligent acts are those where the defendant fails to act with reasonable care towards others.
• Duty of care can also arise from statute (e.g., Health and Safety at Work Act) or common law (e.g., Occupiers Liability Act).
• Duty of care can also arise through statute or common law.
• Negligence involves failing to act with reasonable care and skill expected of someone in a particular position.
• The test for negligence involves considering what a reasonable person would do in the same situation.
• The test for negligence requires considering whether the defendant acted as a reasonable person would have done in the same situation.