82,892
edits
Negligence: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A tortious standard, redolent of snails, ginger-beer, and volumes of the 1932 Appeals Cases so well-worn that they fall open at page 562. | A tortious standard, redolent of snails, ginger-beer, and volumes of the 1932 Appeals Cases so well-worn that they fall open at page 562. | ||
[[Negligence]] is an invention of the law of {{tag|tort}} which defines the general duties people have to each other ''where they don’t have a {{tag|contract}}''. | |||
So if I am navigating my punt and I hit yours, and it sinks, then I have caused you a loss. Since I didn’t have a contract with you — you are,m in the vernacular, a “[[random]]” — the law must decide whether I should nevertheless be liable to pay you compensation. | |||
The common law does this by: | |||
*Prescribing the kind of relationship between randoms that give rise to obligations (whether they are “[[Neighbour|neighbours]]” – people whom one should reasonably anticipate might be affected by one’s careless punting), and | |||
*If they ''are'' neighbours, describing what is my general “[[duty of care]]” to them. | |||
This duty of care was to behave like (if you’ll excuse the dated vernacular) a “[[reasonable man]]”. Someone who is prudent, thoughtful and considerate without being a saint. Famously described as “the [[man on the Clapham omnibus]]”. | |||
{{liability ladder}} | {{liability ladder}} | ||