A tort law concept that deals with situations where someone fails to exercise a reasonable standard of care, resulting in harm to another person
Law must find a balance between compensating for carelessness and ensuring that defendants are not exposed to "a liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class"
Donoghue v Stevenson
Established the "duty to not injure neighbour" - manufacturers had a duty of care to the ultimate consumers of their products
Donoghue v Stevenson: '"You must take reasonable care to avoids acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injury your neighbour"'
The test for whether there is liability for negligence has evolved since Donoghue v Stevenson
Elements of Negligence (the law today)
A duty of care
Breach of the duty of care
Harm
Remoteness
Duty of care
Factors relevant: 1) Relationship/proximity between parties, 2) Presence/absence of policy factors
Possible Policy Factors
Fairness and reasonableness
Societal impact
Economic impact
Encouragement of socially desirable activities
Avoiding opening "floodgates" of litigation
Consistency/overlap with other laws
Breach of duty of care
Defendant has failed to exercise the standard of care appropriate in the circumstances
Factors relevant to standard of care
Ordinary reasonable person in that position
Higher standard if person holds themselves out as having expertise
Degree of risk or harm
Cost of neutralizing the risk
Common practice of the trade or profession
Harm
Plaintiff must show: 1) Actual loss or harm, 2) Caused by defendant's breach of duty
Remoteness of Harm
A person will not be liable for losses that are "too remote"/removed from the defendant. Liability only extends to type of damage which a reasonable person would have foreseen.
