Law of Tort Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Law of Tort - Assignment Example Under the legal contour, foresee connotes the magnitude upon which something can be known well in advance. One cannot be held accountable for an injury happened due to one’s demeanour under the negligence in tort unless the risk of that harm was perceptible or foreseeable. In tort, under negligence, the foreseeability is established by a looking into whether the risk of harm is known to the perpetrator through constructive knowledge well in advance. Foreseeability is looked into on what the perpetrator knew or by reasonable assessment of the scenario. In determining what the standard of care owes by the perpetrator, foreseeability plays a significant role. A person will be held accountable for negligence under tort only if he is able to foresee on happening of an event well before . The origin of duty of care can be said to be derived from the case law Donoghue v Stevenson where the claimant was ill after drinking some of the ginger beer where the remains of a dead snail were noticed .In this land mark case, the manufacture was held liable as he owed a duty of care to the claimants by the House of Lords. In this case, Lord Atkin advanced the â€Å"neighbour principle† that one should take adequate care to prevent omissions or acts which one can rationally foresee would likely to injure his neighbour . 2. In Macpherson v Buick Motor Co3, a duty of reasonable care is reposed on all foreseeable consumers of a product and not limited to those in privity of contract whenever it can be foreseeable that damage will result if the product is faulty. For instance, if a washing machine manufacturer supplies a defective product and if A buys the same and sustains harm, then A is definitely a foreseeable consumer for defective washing machine manufacturer. Hence, unde r Macpherson, the manufacturer owes a duty of reasonable care to A under tort law4. It is to be noted that in Smith New Court Securities v Citibank5 , for the recoverable damage, the test for foreseeability was extended whereas it was not extended in an action in deceit, which is another tort of negligence6. In a negligent action, to establish the element of duty, it is essential to prove that the defendant owed an obligation to the plaintiff who suffered harm. Thus, the duty of care by the defendant should be owed not only to the plaintiff but also will include the others within a certain magnitude along with the plaintiff due to the actions of the plaintiff. Under the zone of danger concept, there is a duty on the defendant that he should reasonably foresee or expect his actions to impact. Thus, if an injury has happened beyond the zone of danger and no negligence can be shown, then the defendant owes no duty to others. For the weird chain-reaction or remote incidents, there can b e no recovery for injuries from the defendant7. If the defendant demeanour proximately created harm to the plaintiff, then the occurrence shall be held to be non-remote, and if it is not, then, it is said to be happened remote. Under the world-at-large concept, defendant is needed to foresee more remote chances of harm to individuals not in the adjacent area and of harms not as willingly predictable to happen from his demeanour. Under this concept, the defendant is anticipated to recognise all individuals in the adjacent a