The basic understanding of negligence is that wrong-doer or the defendant has been careless in a way that harms the interest of the victim or the claimant. Forexample, when the defendant carries out an act of constructing something on herpremises, she owes a duty of care towards the claimant and that the standard ofduty of care depends on whether the claimant was on the site or in the neighborhood as well as whether the claimant was a lawful visitor or atrespasser. Generally, in order to argue successfully that the defendant has been negligent, the victim or the claimant must establish three elements against
The defendant in a tort of negligence case -
1) the defendant owes a duty of care to the victim;
2) there has been a breach of duty of care on part of the defendant; and
3)the breach of the duty to care resulted in the harm suffered by the claimant. Let's consider these elements here.
Duty of Care
The duty of care principle can be explained by citing an actual case law. In a1932 English case of Donoghue v Stevenson, the claimant Donoghue drank asoft drink manufactured by the defendant Stevenson. The drink had adecomposed snail in the bottle that made the claimant ill. The court held that the manufacturer owed duty of care to those who are 'reasonably foreseeable' to be affected by the product. So the duty of care is owed to those whom one can reasonably foresee as being potentially harmed. This principle is applicable to numerous fact situations; as another example, alandlord owes a duty of care with reasonable foresight to his tenants and should ensure that no hazardous substance like petrol is stored by him in the basement of the apartment being dwelt by the tenants.
Breach of Duty of Care
Once the duty of care is proven the claimant then must establish that the duty of care was broken; i.e., the defendant was unsuccessful in fulfilling the duty of care in accordance with the standard of 'reasonableness'. The standard is that of 'reasonable conduct' or 'reasonable foresight', however, the act need not be flawless. In the case of Donoghue v Stevenson above, the court held that the manufacturers of products owe a duty of reasonable care to the consumers who use the products. Similarly, the standard of duty of reasonable care will vary based on the peculiar fact situation of every case.
Harm to the Claimant
In the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, the negligence on part of the manufacturer of the soft drink resulted in the illness or injury to the claimant.
Or, in the second example, the apartment catches fire because of petrol being stored in the basement causing damage to the tenants.
