University of Technology, Jamaica School of

Building and Land Management

GROUP ASSIGNMENT SUBMISSION

Module Code: COE 4015

Instructor(s): Kimica Hibbert

Assignment Information
Assignment/Lab Name/# Professional Practise Assignment

Issue Date: 29/10/2020

Submission Date: 16/11/2020

Student Information
Student Name & ID#: Landel Smith - 1607757

Student Name & ID#: Akime Gowie - 1802668

Student Name & ID#: Damali Swaby - 1706891

Student Name & ID#: Jovan Neil - 1104710

Student Name & ID# Devon Palmer - 1805149

Student Name & ID#:

What is Negligence? .................................................................................................................. 1

Elements of a Negligence Claim................................................................................................ 1

Duty ........................................................................................................................................ 1

Breach of Duty ....................................................................................................................... 2

Causation ................................................................................................................................ 3

Damages ................................................................................................................................. 4

References .................................................................................................................................. 6
 What is Negligence?

Negligence is a legal theory that must be proved before you can hold a person or

company legally responsible for the harm you suffered. Proving negligence is required in

most claims from accidents or injuries, such as car accidents or "slip and fall" cases.

Negligence claims must prove four things in court: duty, breach, causation, and

damages/harm. Generally speaking, when someone acts in a careless way and causes an

injury to another person, under the legal principle of "negligence" the careless person will be

legally liable for any resulting harm and you may have a legal right to seek compensation for

your injuries. This basis for assessing and determining fault is utilized in most disputes

involving an accident or injury, during informal settlement talks and up through a trial in a

personal injury lawsuit.

Elements of a Negligence Claim

The modern law of negligence was established in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC

562. In order to win a negligence case, the plaintiff (the person injured) must prove four

elements to show that the defendant (the person allegedly at fault) acted negligently

Duty

The first question to be determined in any action for negligence is whether the

defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. In general, a duty of care will be owed

wherever in the circumstances it is foreseeable that, if the defendants does not exercise due

care, the plaintiff will be harmed. This case foreseeability test was laid down by Lord Atkin

in the celebrated case of Donoghue v Stevenson and is known as the neighbour principle. The

rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes, in law, you must not injure your neighbour.

‘who, then, in law is my neighbour ?’ the answer seems to be- persons who are so closely and

Page | 1
directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in my contemplation as

being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in

question’ The Neighbour principle is the ‘bedrock’ of the law of Negligence The Neighbour

Principle was further revised and affirmed by Lord Wilberforce, in Anns v Merton London

Borough Council (1978) First, one has to ask whether, as between the alleged wrongdoer and

the person who has suffered damage: “There is a sufficient relationship of proximity or

neighbourhood such that, in the reasonable contemplation of the former, carelessness on his

part may be likely to cause damage to the latter- in which case a prima facie duty of care

arises”

Secondly, if the first question is answered affirmatively, It is necessary to consider

whether there are any considerations which ought to negative, or to reduce or limit the scope

of the duty or the class of person to whom it is owed or the damages to which a breach of it

may give rise.

Breach of Duty

This element implies the pre-existence of a standard of proper behaviour to avoid

imposing undue risks of harm to other persons and their property, which circles back to duty.

In Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing NC 467, the defendant's haystack caught fire

due to poor ventilation. The defendant had been warned on numerous occasions that this

would happen if he left the haystack. The defendant argued he had used his best judgment

and did not foresee a risk of fire. The court held his best judgment was not enough. He was to

be judged by the standard of a reasonable man.

In Condon v Basi [1985] 1 WLR 866 Court of Appeal, the Claimant suffered a broken

leg during a tackle from the Defendant during a football match. The Claimant was playing for

Whittle Wanderers and the Defendant for the Khalso Football Club. Both clubs were in the

Page | 2
Leamington local league. The question for the court was the standard of care expected of a

football player. The court held that the standard of care varies according to the level of

expertise the player has. The Defendant was in breach of duty as the tackle was reckless even

with regards the standard expected of a local league player. Whilst a participant can be taken

to accept the risks of injury inherent to such sporting activities they do not accept the risk of

injury which occurs outside the rules of the game.

To assess what type and amount of care is reasonable in particular circumstances,

negligence law turns to the standard of "a reasonable prudent person" and asks how such a

person would behave in a particular situation, in pursuing his or her own objectives, to avoid

harming others in the process.' By defining the standard of proper behaviour in terms of a

mythical prudent person, the law thus sets up an objective standard against which to measure

a defendant's conduct. That is, to determine whether a defendant's choices and conduct that

led to accidental injury were negligent or non-negligent does not depend so much on the

defendant's personal efforts to be careful, which is a subjective question about which

negligence law generally is not concerned. Instead, in determining breach, negligence law

normally compares the defendant's conduct to an external standard of good behaviour, an

"objective" standard, measured by how a reasonable, prudent person would have acted in the

circumstances with respect to imposing risks on others.

Causation

For this particular element, it therefore require the plaintiff to prove that it is the

action of the defendant’s negligence actually caused his or her injury. This is often referred to

as "but-for" causation, meaning that, but for the defendant's actions, the plaintiff's injury

would not have occurred. If the defendant's actions somehow caused the plaintiff injury

intentionally then the defendant will most likely be found liable.

Page | 3
 In R.V.White (1910) the defendant put poison into the evening drink of the victim, his

mother, with the intention of killing her. The victim drank a few sips of the drink and then

fell asleep. She died in her sleep, however the medical evidence was that she had died of a

heart attack rather than as a result of the poison. The defendant also gave evidence that he had

not intended to kill her by a single dose but had planned to deliver multiple doses over a

longer period of time. The defendant was convicted of attempted murder. On appeal, the

question arose as to whether the defendant could be liable for murder given that his actions

had not factually caused the death. The court established the ‘but for’ test of causation,

according to which the defendant could not be convicted unless it could be shown that ‘but

for’ his actions the victim would not have died. On the facts of this case the test was not met,

therefore the defendant could not be convicted of murder, however the conviction for

attempted murder was therefore upheld.

In the case above the defendant could not have been charge for murder since the

medical evidence was not proving the defendant to be the cause of the death. This element

stated that for a defendant to be found guilty he or she would have to fit for "but-for"

situation in which the case did not. However there is enough evidence to prove that the

defendant attempt to murder the plaintiff so the defendant is fit for the charge of attempted

murder.

Damages

A contract that was signed between two people when breached a penalty incurred to

cater for the damages. The basic principle of injury in cases where contracts are signed. The

penalty's fundamental purpose is always to service the harm experienced by the other party.

The direction of damage argues that the liabilities for damages are meant to revert the

claimant to a position they would have been in if the contact would have been successful in

Page | 4
any case. The court may, however, issue penalties which are beyond compensation. This

assignment critically expels the principles of damages involves in two different court cases.

The first case is between Evcay and Godfrey under the case number '80 Lloyds Rep 286'. The

claimant complains of having been given a defective boat. However, the defended explains

that the ship was in good condition when the agreement was made and only advised the

claimant to have it checked. The court withholds the damages of the contract. The court

argues that the boat was in good condition during the signing of the contact. Having the

claimant surveying the ship was for the defendant's need, preventing the claimant from

making claims. ("Evcay V Godfrey). Damage of contact has limited this kind of case. The

damage principle states that damages cannot be awarded if somebody is pushed to mitigate

unreasonable damages. Once the product was in a good state during the contract signing, the

claimant has to reduce the injuries.

The second case is recorded between the Skyways and Edwards. Before the Appeal

court. The initial term of agreements indicated that the airline, Skyways, would pay Edward

if he withdrew his pension fund contributions. The company hover does not pay according to

the contract due to financial problems. The court rules that the claimant is entitled to damages

considering that the business was transacted ona a legal business context ("Edwards V

Skyways," pg. 1). Additionally, the damage principle indicates that the defendant must pay

the claimant if there was an obligation to pay money only. In the case, the airline had a duty

to pay Edward, which was agreed on

Page | 5
 References

"Ecay V Godfrey." E-Lawresources.Co.Uk, 2020, http://www.e-

lawresources.co.uk/cases/Ecay-v-Godfrey.php.

"Edwards V Skyways." E-Lawresources.Co.Uk, 2020, http://www.e-

lawresources.co.uk/Edwards-v-Skyways.php.

Legal, Location By. "Proving Fault: What Is Negligence? - FindLaw."

www.findlaw.com, 12 Nov. 2019, https://www.findlaw.com/injury/accident-injury

law/proving-fault-what-is-negligence.html. Accessed 14 Nov. 2020.

"R v White - 1910." www.lawteacher.net, Nov. 2018,

https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-white.php. Accessed 14 Nov. 2020.

Owen, D., G. (2007) "The Five Elements of Negligence," Hofstra Law Review: Vol.

35: Iss. 4, Article 1. Retrieved October 12, 2020, from

https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2282&context=hlr

Condon v Basi [1985] 1 WLR 866 Court of Appeal. (n.d). e-lawresources.co.uk.

Retrieved October 12, 2020, from https://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Condon-v-Basi.php

Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing NC 467. (n.d). e-lawresources.co.uk. Retrieved

October 12, 2020, from https://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Condon-v-Basi.php

Page | 6