MZUMBE UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF LAW
PROGRAM: BACHELOR OF LAWS (LL. B) I
COURSE: LAW OF TORTS
CODE: LAW 128
LECTURER: MADAM. PATRICIA M
TASK: GROUP ASSIGNMENT
GROUP NUMBER: SIX(6)
STREAM: C
NAMES REG. NUMBER
1. JOSEPH JACOB 1236197/T.23
2. REUBEN CHARLES 1236083/T.23
3. SWALEHE RASULI 1236155/T.23
4. SHEKHAN LIKUNJA 1236088/T.23
5. ELIZABETH NYAMHANGA 1236268/T.23
6. VALENTINE JAMES 1236143/T.23
7. CLARA JUDETHADDEUS 1236138/T.23

QUESTION
Discuss what is meant by ‘a duty of care’ in the tort of negligence.
 TABLE OF CONTTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
SCOPE OF THE QUESTION
Development the concept of Duty of care

2.0 MAIN DISCUSSION

2.1.1 RECOGNITION OF DUTY OF CARE IN TANZANIA

3.0 CONCLUSSION

REFERENCES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The question require us to explain the role duty of care in tort of negligence.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPT OF DUTY OF CARE.
The concept of duty of care developed early at the time of industrial revolution in Europe, when
there was emergence of new industries and new technologies, which in turn created new risks
and hazards for workers and consumers. As a result, courts had to grapple with how to balance
the interests of these groups with the interests of manufacturers and employers 1. Also The
increased production and trade brought about by the Industrial Revolution also led to a greater
need for clear legal rules and regulations to govern the relationship between producers and
consumers. There are landmark cases that established the modern concept of duty of care which
are;-
Donoghue v Stevenson2
Mrs. Donoghue, a young woman, drank a bottle of ginger beer bought by her boyfriend in a
Glasgow café she found a decomposing snail in the bottle and becaming ill with gastroenteritis
and nervous shock after drank the beer, and decided to sue the ginger beer manufacturer for
negligence, arguing that they had a duty of care to ensure their products were safe for
consumption. Lord Atkins went to his famous neighborhood principle, that you must love your
neighbour and not injure him or her, the manufacturer of ginger beer had a duty of care to ensure
their products are safe, thus their action of manufacturing unsafe products revealed that they
foreseen that products might endanger their neighbors (manufacturer-consumer relationship), and
they failed to take any reasonable action to prevent such problems, so they were liable.
George v Skivingston3
The plaintiff purchased a chemical compound from the defendant as a hair wash for the use of
his wife, the defendant represented it to be fit and proper to be used for washing the hair, the
compound was so negligently and improperly made, it injured the plaintiff's wife at the time of
using it, here the court held that the defendant is liable since he wasn't only a seller but also the
manufacturer of the product and made it negligently revealed that he has foreseen that products
will injury his neighbours (customers) and he doesn't take any reasonable action to prevent the
users affected by his product.

1
Catherine Elliot Francis Quinn, (2005) Law of Torts, 5th edition, Pearson education Ltd, England Pg.120
2
[1932] AC 562, 578-599
3
3 H&N 211; 157 ER 448
THE DUTY OF CARE; refers to the legal obligation imposed to an individual or organizations
as to take reasonable precautions to avoid foreseeable harms or injury to others 4. Basically it
means you should be careful and responsible in your actions to ensure that you don't cause any
damages or injury to your neighbour and their properties, a Neighbour in law is a person who is
directly and closely affected by your omissions or actions and this neighborhood doesn't require
physical proximity5. The duty of care can be owed by anyone who is in possion of power or
responsibilities, if you have the power to impact other's lives or wellbeing you probably owe
them a duty of care .
Example;
(a) A driver owes a duty of care to other road user like pedestrians, cyclists and other
motorists through, obeying traffic rules such as speed limits, not driving under the
influence of alcohol and maintaining their vehicles in good condition. If the driver will
not consider them to the extent of causing foreseeable harm or injury to other road users
he or she will be responsible for the damages suffered.
(b) A doctor owes a duty of care to their patients which means that they must act with
reasonable skills and care when treating them, this include properly diagnosing a patient's
medical condition, also providing proper treatment including explaining risks and options
and monitoring patients for any adverse effect from treatment.
(c) In the very same way employers owes a duty of care to their employees like ensuring
they are not exposed to hazardous conditions at work.
(d) Manufacturers of any industrial products have to, in the same way have to take
reasonable care to their consumers and ensure that their products are safe to the extent of
not causing any harm to the users. Thus manufacturers owes a duty of care to their
consumers.

2.0 MAIN DISCUSSION

4
Catherine Elliot Francis Quinn, (2005) Law of Torts, 5th edition, Pearson education Ltd, England Pg.129
5
Winfield, P. H., & Ellis, L. T. (1954). Winfield on tort: 15th Ed, A textbook of the law of tort. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Chicago pg 210
 (i) Foreseeability; this means the injury or harm suffered by the plaintiff were reasonably
foreseeable by the defendant6. For example if a driver runs a red light and hit a
pedestrian, it seems that it was foreseeable that the pedestrian might be injured, so the
driver could have reasonably foreseen that his action could harm other road users, thus he
owes a duty of care to them.
(ii) Proximity; this refers to cm closeness of the relationship between the plaintiff and the
defendant7. The closer the relationship the more the likely a duty of care will exist,
proximity might not be physically. Example, imagine a teacher knows that one of their
students is being bullied by other students in the classroom, the teacher doesn't take any
steps to stop or protect the bullying ad a result the student is injured. In this situation the
teacher had a closer relationship with a student (Teacher - Student relationship) due o that
relationship the there exist a duty of care to the teacher and it was foreseeable that the
student could be injured if the bullying wasn't addressed, the teacher breached his duty of
care to the student.
(iii) Reasonableness; The reasonableness element is used to determine whether the
defendant's actions were reasonable under the circumstances. This means that the
defendant's actions must be compared to what a "reasonable person" would have done in
the same situation. If the defendant's actions fall below the standard of what a reasonable
person would have done, then the defendant may have breached their duty of care, here's
an example to illustrate reasonableness:
A restaurant manager receives a complaint that a customer found a hair in their food. The
manager apologizes and offers to replace the food, but the customer insists on leaving. The
customer later sues the restaurant, claiming that they suffered emotional distress as a result of the
incident. In this case, the restaurant's actions (apologizing and offering to replace the food)
would likely be considered reasonable under the circumstances. The manager took appropriate
steps to address the complaint, and the customer's emotional distress was not a foreseeable
consequence of the incident8.
2.1.1 RECOGNITION OF DUTY OF CARE IN TANZANIA

6
C.S.Binamungu, (2002) Law of Tort in Tanzania, 1st Ed, Research and publication department, Mzumbe morogoro. pg 44
7
ibid to pg 44
8
Catherine Elliot Francis Quinn, (2005) Law of Torts, 5th edition, Pearson education Ltd, England Pg.112
Here we discussed on how Tanzania has been awareness in the presence of duty of care by
showing the decided cases that has determine different relationships, Such as follows
In Belson Mbezibwa vs. Coca cola Kwanza Ltd9;
This case was determine the relationship between a purchaser and consumer whereby At the bar,
the complainant ordered a soft drink, which he started to consume. However, as he was ready to
finish it, he noticed some fragments of a dead snail in the drink's bottle. Because he could not
actually sue a vendor, he made the decision to sue the soft drinks maker. Following a finding of
negligence, the drink's manufacturer was ordered by the court to compensate the plaintiff for her
losses, up to fifty million shillings. Hence, this case established the negligent principle of duty of
care in negligence because the manufacturers had a responsibility to ensure that the entire
production process was safe.
B.A Minga v. Mwananchi Total Service Station,Shinyanga And Total (T) Ltd10
The "respondent" in this instance was the Mwananchi Total Service Station, which sold fuel in
general and kerosene specifically. There was not much fuel available at the time. The product
was used to combine diesel and kerosene in order to enhance the amount of fuel available on the
market because of the circumstances. The appellant sent his children to buy kerosene at the gas
station on the relevant day. The fuel was combined with the kerosene that the children had
purchased. Upon being brought home, the fuel was poured into the little lawn, where it caught
fire and destroyed a significant portion of the appellant's land.
The defendant was held accountable for breaching the duty of care because the seller had an
obligation to take reasonable care.
Theodoclina Alfaxad “minor” Vs the medical officer of Mkinga Hospital 11
There's some circumstances whereby the doctor can be liable for his conduct to their patients 12,
In this case the plaintiff was a student of primary school, one day while playing with her mate
she fell and broke her arms and she was taken to the hospital of Mkinga- Tabora after transfer
from the near dispensary. Where the first day the doctor give a pain killer. The x-ray was taken in
the second day where a P.O.P was wrapped around the arm and lastly the arm was amputated due

9
Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1999
10
[1972] HCD 241
11
(1992) TLR 235.
12
Jone,M.(1996) Medical Negligence (2nd Eds), Sweet and Maxwell, London pg 245
to negligence.The Court held that the hospital must be liable due to the doctor information was
not sufficient. The doctor also fails to explain to the child fracture about the serious condition.

With the same matter of the relationships between the doctor and patient it was discussed in
Mwamini Adam Vs Urambo District Hospital13 whereby the doctor left a piece of cloth after
the delivery operation which led to another operation which caused the uterus to be removed.
The court applied the maxim Res ipsa loquitor to mean that things speak for it's self.. that has
been connected that an act of negligence it led the plaintiff suffering mental torture caused by the
hospital, psychological and mental pain.
Tenant-Landlord Relationship
Michael Mwamiko v. Angetile Mwanjela14
It was establish the relationships between tenant and landlord. The tenant in this case lost his
wife and his mother in law when using the defective premisesof a toilet. The facts were as
follows: On the material day-theplaintiff's wife (mother of å young child) and his mother in
law,were taking showers in a bathroom -cum-toilet, where they wereresiding. In the process of
taking showers, the top of the toilet whichhad developed cracks and caved for some time
collapsed. The wife of the plaintiff and the mother in law drowned. The defendant(landlord) was
found to be in such a relationship that required himto observe a duty of care of making sure that
the toilets were fit foruse by members who occupied the premises. He was held liable.
Therefore in Tanzania recognized duty of care in various laws and regulations, including the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 2003, the Employment and Labour Relations Act of 2004,
and the Public Health Act of 2009 The advocates (Professional conduct and etiquette)
Regulations, 2018.
3.0 CONCLUSION
Overall, the concept of duty of care in the tort of negligence serves as a foundational principle in
holding individuals and organizations accountable for their actions and ensuring that they act
responsibly to prevent harm to others. It provides a framework for assessing legal liability and
determining compensation for damages resulting from negligent behavior.

13
Civil Case No. 13 of 2011
14
Civil Case No. 7of 199 (HC) DSM (unreported)
 REFERENCES
CASES
Belson Mbezibwa vs. Coca cola Kwanza Ltd Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1999
B.A Minga v. Mwananchi Total Service Station,Shinyanga And Total (T) Ltd [1972] HCD 241
Theodoclina Alfaxad “minor” Vs the medical officer of Mkinga Hospital (1992) TLR 235
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, 578-599
George v Skivingston 3 H&N 211; 157 ER 448
Mwamini Adam Vs Urambo District Hospital Civil Case No. 13 of 2011
Michael Mawmiko vs. Angetile Mwanjela Civil Case No. 7of 199 (HC) DSM (unreported)

BOOKS
C.S.Binamungu, (2002) Law of Tort in Tanzania, 1st Ed, Research and publication department,
Mzumbe morogoro.
Catherine Elliot Francis Quinn, (2005) Law of Torts, 5th edition, Pearson education Ltd, England
Winfield, P. H., & Ellis, L. T. (1954). Winfield on tort: 15th Ed, A textbook of the law of tort.
London: Sweet & Maxwell. Chicago
Montgomery, J. (1998) Health Care Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Jone,M.(1996) Medical Negligence (2nd Eds), Sweet and Maxwell, London