The Three Elements and Defenses are Necessary in Negligence within the United Kingdom (Essay Sample)

ANALYZE HOW TORT OF NEGLIGENCE OPERATES WITHIN THE UNITED KINGDOM.
University
Name of Student
Course Name and Number
Lecturer
Date of Submission
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………….……2
1.0 INTRODUCTION………………………..…………………………………….……………...3
1.1 DEFINITION OF TERMS…………………………………………….………...………….…3
2 .0 INRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………...…………3
2.1THREE ELEMENTS REQUIRED PROVING A NEGLIGENT CLAIM TO BE SUCCESSFUL...…………………………………………………………………………….….…3
3.0 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………….……………………...……….6
3.1 ANALYZE THE DEFENSES AVAILABLE TO THE TORT OF NEGLIGENCE………....6
4.0 INTRODUCTION……………………..……………………….……………………….…….7
4.1 TASK 2………………………………………………………………………………………..7
4.2 CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY………………………………………………….……….7
5.0 REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………...8
ANALYZE HOW TORT OF NEGLIGENCE OPERATES WITHIN THE UNITED KINGDOM.
The tort of negligence. In the words of Owen David, “Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of care required by law resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed.” In the words of Anderson B in Blyth v Birmingham Water Works Co. “Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man guided upon those regulations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or do something which a reasonable and prudent man would not have done that thing.”[Blyth v Birmingham Water Works Company( 1856) 11 Ex Ch 781]
1 Three elements required proving a negligent claim to be successful.
The law of the tort is there to protect various personals and business interests. Liability from torts arises from the breach of duty which is fixed by the law. The tort of negligence has three important elements which a plaintiff must demonstrate clearly to the court that the defendant breached them so that his claim can be successful these include a legal duty of care, breach of duty and loss or damage.
The legal duty of care. The plaintiff has a task of proving that the defendant owed him a duty of care when the action happened. During the occurrence of the action, the defendant must have known that acting negligently would result in injuring the plaintiff. In the words of Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) “A person owes a duty of care to his neighbors this is the so-called neighbor principal and you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbor.” The defendant has a duty of care to the plaintiff when a circumstance happens but there are circumstances in which the defendant does not owe a plaintiff a duty of care. During such circumstances, the plaintiff cannot win the case of negligence against the defendant. The following case law explains a scenario where the defendant is not responsible for duty of care against the defendant. In Bourhill v. Young an expectant lady suffered a nervous shock when she heard a loud bang and she saw a pool of blood as