In order for a claim of tortuous liability in negligence to be actionable, primarily, certain fundamental pre-requisites need to be established in each case respectively. The requirements of the modern tort of negligence were stated by Lord Wright in,Lochgelly and Coal Co ltd v McMullan, as being, i) the existence of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the claimant; ii) a breach of that duty; iii) damage or injury caused by that breach of duty. Each aforesaid area must be examined, and principally established in each separate claim against the defendant, for any proceedings against the defendant to be successful.To start, the first task is to identify and define the range to whom a duty of care is owed. Negligence is essentially concerned with compensating people who have suffered damage as a result of the carelessness of others. If a duty of care cannot be established and shown to exist in each of the situations concerned, then the remaining elements of the tort of negligence need not be recognized.This law essay is an example of a student's workDisclaimerThis essay has been submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies. This is not an example of the work written by our professional law writers.Law Essay Writing ServiceLaw Assignment Writing ServiceLaw Coursework Writing ServiceWho wrote this essay?Freelance Writing JobsPlace an OrderOver the last century, the modern tort of negligence originated with the House of Lords decision inDonoghue v Stevenson. This case was a significant keystone in the tort of negligence. It is famed because of Lord Atkins neighbour principle'in which he sets out the framework for determining the existence of a duty of care. To that end, negligence liability is thus based on a core test known as the neighbour principal'.In the years followingDonoghue v Stevenson,the limits of negligence have continued to expand. Lord Wilberforce inAnns v Merton London Borough Councilstated that the courts use a two stage test. First, the courts should establish whether the parties satisfied the neighbour test. Secondly,the court should ask whether there were any policy considerations which dictated that no duty should exist. The problem with theAnnstest is it seemed it could be applied with little regard for previous case law and it appeared that the bounds of liability would extend beyond what was considered to be reasonable. InCurran v Northern Ireland co, Lord Bridge describedAnnsas the high water mark' of a trend in which a duty of care could arise. This high water mark led to a rapid judicial retreat and a reassertion of restrictions on new duties of care. InMurphy v Brentwood District Councilthe House of Lords overruled their previous decision inAnnsanddecided the law should develop novel categories of negligence.For duty of care claims involving damage as regards to physical injury, the basis of the current approach was summed up in the key case ofCaparo v Dickman.The formal requirements that now must be satisfied before a duty of care is held to exist are; i) forseeabilty of damage ii) a sufficiently proximate' relationship between the parties; and iii) even where (a) and (b) are satisfied it must be just and reasonable'to impose a duty.The concept of forseeabilty, i.e., what a hypothetical reasonable man' would have foreseen in the circumstances, is ubiquitous in the tort of negligence. It is the foundation of the neighbour principle, but is also used as a test of breach of duty and remoteness of damage. The loss must be foreseeable as a possibility'.'Proximity' is usually used as shorthand for the neighbour principle. This refers to legal not physical proximity. Physical proximity may be relevant in deciding whether the parties should be treated as neighbours' in law, as inHome office v Dorset Yacht Co.Ltd, but it is not an essential requirement.However, although this test does provide a broad framework for the establishment of a duty of care, in practice the detailed rules have come to differ according to the following factors: the type of damage sustained (the three main categories being personal injury and/ or property, pure economic loss and, as relevant to this case, psychiatric injury); whether the damage was caused by an act or omission; whether it was caused by a third party; and whether the defendant(s) fall within a range of groups who have become subject to special rules.To that end, it is clear that the claims against the defendant in this case are all concerning psychiatric injury. In order for a claimant to claim for psychiatric illness, a claimant must prove that they have suffered, what Lord Bridge described inMcloughlin v O'Brianas a positive psychiatric illness.'Additionally, medical evidence will be needed to prove this. Furthermore, claimants who can prove such injury can only claim in negligence if they can establish that they are owed a duty of care by the defendant, as discussed above, with regard to psychiatric injury. Moreover, this will depend on their relationship to the event which caused the shock.To do so will require the examination of the case law which has developed sets of rules, covering different categories of claimant. The number of categories has varied at different stages of the law's development, but since the most recent House of Lords case,White and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, there are now three categories. However, in the light of the claims in this case, only two categories are relevant, those being; i) those who were put in danger of physical harm, but actually suffer only psychiatric injury.This law essay is an example of a student's workDisclaimerThis essay has been submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies. This is not an example of the work written by our professional law writers.Law Essay Writing ServiceLaw Assignment Writing ServiceLaw Coursework Writing ServiceWho wrote this essay?Freelance Writing JobsPlace an OrderVictims who fall into this category, are termed primary victims; and ii) those who are not put in danger of physical injury to themselves, but suffer psychiatric injury as a result of witnessing such injury to others; these are called secondary victims. A duty of care to secondary victims will arise only if they can satisfy very restrictive requirements.In turning to the case in hand, as regards to Billie's claim of negligence against the defendant, it seems clear from the statement that he is a primary victim in this case. The ordinary rules in negligence, as established above, apply to such a case. It is recognised in law that motorists owe a duty of care to other road users, thus, satisfying the first requirement in order for negligence to be established.Likewise, it is clear that the defendant negligently breached this duty, due to a lapse in concentration whilst in charge of a motor vehicle. Furthermore, despite the fact that Billy did not suffer any physical injuries, it is stated that Billy does suffer psychiatric injury in the form of post-traumatic stress disorder. InMcLoughlin v O'BrianLord Bridge recognized PTSD, amongst others, as a positive psychiatric illness', furthermore liability for psychiatric damage was established in the leading case ofDulieu v White & Sons.InDulieu, Kennedy J stated in an obiter dictum that liability for psychiatric illness was limited by a requirement that there must be shock which arises from a reasonable fear of injury to oneself'.The defendant was found liable even though there was no physical injury, as he had foreseen that the claimant would have suffered shock. In addition,White and others v C.C South Yorkshire Policeconfirms that if a person negligently exposes another to a risk of injury they will be liable for any psychological damage that this may cause the person, even if the threatened physical injury does not in fact happen. To that end it would be probable that a claim for negligence, with regards to this situation,would be successful. However, as fore mentioned medical evidence is needed to prove any psychiatric illness and without this obligatory evidence, any grounds for a claim in negligence would be insignificant.In addressing Minty's position, it is clear from the statement that Minty is not physically injured in the incident. Furthermore, despite not seeing the actual incident, he hears the crash and arrives on the scene within seconds. The sudden shock of witnessing the aftermath scenes of the accident triggers a previous psychological condition.White and Others v C.C South Yorkshire Policeestablishes that sufferers of psychiatric injury who are not either physically injured or in danger of being physically injured are to be considered secondary victims.This provides the authority to class Minty as a secondary victim in this case.McLoughlin v O'Brian and Alcock v Chief Constable of Yorkshire, established that secondary victims could only claim for psychiatric injury in very limited circumstances,Whiteconfirms these limitations. InMcLoughlin v O'Brian, it is evident that this case bears much resemblance to the case involving Minty, the key difference here is that Minty is a witness and is on the scene within seconds of the accident, thus putting him in the realms of proximity.Additionally, the facts in this case are similar to that ofBourhill v Young. NotwithstandingBourhillthe law relating to nervous shock' has moved on significantly from this decision, albeit that the reluctance to compensate for harm caused by psychiatric means persist. However, it is stated in this case that the shock that Minty sufferers due to the scenes witnessed, triggered a previous psychological condition. InPage v Smiththe plaintiff, suffered the recrudescence of a psychological condition, allegedly due to a car accident in which he was involved.The plaintiff was successful at first instance. However, the defendant appealed against this decision primarily on the basis that it had not been reasonably foreseeable that a person of normal fortitude would have suffered psychiatric injury. Though on appeal to the House of Lords Lord Lloyd stated;There is no justification for regarding physical and psychiatric injury as different kinds' of injury.In this case the plaintiff was successful and the appeal was allowed. Although, this is distinguished from the case involving Minty, for inPage v Smithit is clear in this case the plaintiff is a primary victim. Therefore, in Minty's case a claim will only be successful if a duty of care can be found as regards to Minty. Furthermore, further limitation on the duty of care in cases of psychiatric shock was added in Greatorex v Geatorex, in which it was held that primary victim cannot owe a duty to secondary victims.This law essay is an example of a student's workDisclaimerThis essay has been submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies. This is not an example of the work written by our professional law writers.Law Essay Writing ServiceLaw Assignment Writing ServiceLaw Coursework Writing ServiceWho wrote this essay?Freelance Writing JobsPlace an OrderTo the end it appears that any claim by Minty in negligence would be unsuccessful, unless, it can be proved that he falls within the class of people which the law allows to claim for such injuries. One of those possible classes able to claim includes, relatives or friends of those killed or injured as a result of the defendant's negligence. This will only apply in this case if Minty's relationship to Phil is found to be sufficient. In Alcock the point was made that there might be very rare occasions when an accident was so horrific that psychiatric damage to even uninvolved bystanders was foreseeable, and there a duty of care would arise.Furthermore, another test which secondary victims must pass in order to have a claim concerns proximity. In Alcock it was established that a witness must have been sufficiently proximate of the accident, which means they must have been present at the scene of the accident or its immediate aftermath. It is clear in Minty's case that he satisfies this requirement. If Minty can gratify each of the afore mentioned categories, a claim in negligence may be successful.Moving on, and turning attention now to this case involving the emergency services. A further class of people who are classed as secondary victims are rescuers at the scene of accidents. The question that needs to be answered in this case is, what requirements must a rescuer now satisfy in order to bring a claim for nervous shock?' InWhite v Chief Constable of South Yorkshirethe House of Lords denied that any distinctive duty is owed to a person simply by virtue of his employment relationship with the defendant or his status as a rescuer.As the plaintiffs in this case were not personally threatened' or in a relationship of love and affection with any of the deceased, it followed that their claims had to fail. To that end, this appears to provide the authority to envisage that any claim by the paramedics would be unsuccessful, for they were never in any real danger of injury. However, it is stated in this case that the fire service, were involved in the incident.Moreover, where put in a position of real danger. In White v CC of South Yorkshire, a number of police officers sued their employer, in respect of PTSD suffered in the aftermath of Hillsborough football disaster. This case can be distinguished from the case in question for the fire servicemen's claim is against Ian and not there employer. Furthermore, on appeal it was held inWhitethat for policy reasons the actions should be dismissed, though technically they should have succeeded. For reasons established it is therefore unlikely that if the fire servicemen pursue a claim, it would be successful.Switching attention now to the situation concerning Peggy. It is stated that she is informed of the accident by Phil's wife, Stella. Thus constituting a third party in this instance. She then rushes to the hospital, but only arrives ten hours later, upon which she sees the body of her dead son and seriously ill grandchildren. This results in PTSD. To reiterate, any psychological condition will need to be supported with medical evidence.This situation raises the issue of proximity. In McLoughlin v O'Brian, the House of Lords made it clear that merely being informed of the incident by a third party was not sufficiently proximate. To add in McLoughlin Lord Ackner stated that identifying the body of a loved one, eight hours after the accident did not fall within the immediate aftermath of the tragedy.However, this runs contrary to the decision in Hevican v Raune, which was decided afterAlcock.In this casea father was informed of his son's death at the police station, then identified his body in the mortuary. He was liable to claim damages for nervous shock that he suffered. Conversely, in the light of thedictainAlcockit is unlikely that this case would be decided in the same way today. For these reasons any claim by Peggy is also probable to be unsuccessful.Finally, as regards to Stella's position in this case. It is stated that she is informed of the incident by the police, again constituting a third party, and she identifies Phil's body at the scene. This could be seen as a break in the chain of causation, as regards to Ian, for it is the police who inform her of the accident from which she suffers PTSD, and not a direct result of Ian's negligence. Furthermore, inAlcockLord Keith states;Liability for injury in the particular form of psychiatric illness must depend in addition upon a requisite relationship of proximity between the claimant and the said party to owe the duty ties of love and affection are numerous, and it is the existence of such ties which lead to mental disturbance when the loved one suffers a catastrophe the closeness of the tie would, however, require to be proved by the plaintiffthis may be stronger in the case of engaged couples than in persons who have been married for many yearsTo that end it would appear that all ties of love and affection, as regards to Stella and Phil, were severed, in light of the fact that she left Phil to take up residence with her new partner Grant. Moreover she had not spoken to Phil in over Six Months. For reasons identified it would be unlikely that any claim on Stella's part would be successful.To conclude, Negligence is a fault based tort. To be successful in an action a claimant must prove all of the earlier discussed criterions. To that end, in Billie's case, if he can support his medical condition with evidence, it is likely he would succeed in an action against Ian. In the case of Minty, If he can pass the tests and satisfy the requirements that establish secondary victims, he could also be successful.However, claimants of Minty's type only succeed in very limited circumstances, and any action by Minty is more likely to fail. With regards to the Emergency services, It is seems almost certain that any claim by the paramedics would fail. Likewise, despite the fact the fire service are put in danger, it also seems unlikely that a claim would succeed. Finally, in Peggy's case, for reasons established, it seems she would be probable to fail in an action. In addition, it also appears that Stella's claim would be unlikely to succeed.

In order for a claim of tortuous liability in negligence to be actionable, primarily, certain fundamental pre-requisites need to be established in each case respectively. The requirements of the modern tort of negligence were stated by Lord Wright in,Lochgelly and Coal Co ltd v McMullan, as being, i) the existence of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the claimant; ii) a breach of that duty; iii) damage or injury caused by that breach of duty. Each aforesaid area must be examined, and principally established in each separate claim against the defendant, for any proceedings against the defendant to be successful.To start, the first task is to identify and define the range to whom a duty of care is owed. Negligence is essentially concerned with compensating people who have suffered damage as a result of the carelessness of others. If a duty of care cannot be established and shown to exist in each of the situations concerned, then the remaining elements of the tort of negligence need not be recognized.This law essay is an example of a student's workDisclaimerThis essay has been submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies. This is not an example of the work written by our professional law writers.Law Essay Writing ServiceLaw Assignment Writing ServiceLaw Coursework Writing ServiceWho wrote this essay?Freelance Writing JobsPlace an OrderOver the last century, the modern tort of negligence originated with the House of Lords decision inDonoghue v Stevenson. This case was a significant keystone in the tort of negligence. It is famed because of Lord Atkins neighbour principle'in which he sets out the framework for determining the existence of a duty of care. To that end, negligence liability is thus based on a core test known as the neighbour principal'.In the years followingDonoghue v Stevenson,the limits of negligence have continued to expand. Lord Wilberforce inAnns v Merton London Borough Councilstated that the courts use a two stage test. First, the courts should establish whether the parties satisfied the neighbour test. Secondly,the court should ask whether there were any policy considerations which dictated that no duty should exist. The problem with theAnnstest is it seemed it could be applied with little regard for previous case law and it appeared that the bounds of liability would extend beyond what was considered to be reasonable. InCurran v Northern Ireland co, Lord Bridge describedAnnsas the high water mark' of a trend in which a duty of care could arise. This high water mark led to a rapid judicial retreat and a reassertion of restrictions on new duties of care. InMurphy v Brentwood District Councilthe House of Lords overruled their previous decision inAnnsanddecided the law should develop novel categories of negligence.For duty of care claims involving damage as regards to physical injury, the basis of the current approach was summed up in the key case ofCaparo v Dickman.The formal requirements that now must be satisfied before a duty of care is held to exist are; i) forseeabilty of damage ii) a sufficiently proximate' relationship between the parties; and iii) even where (a) and (b) are satisfied it must be just and reasonable'to impose a duty.The concept of forseeabilty, i.e., what a hypothetical reasonable man' would have foreseen in the circumstances, is ubiquitous in the tort of negligence. It is the foundation of the neighbour principle, but is also used as a test of breach of duty and remoteness of damage. The loss must be foreseeable as a possibility'.'Proximity' is usually used as shorthand for the neighbour principle. This refers to legal not physical proximity. Physical proximity may be relevant in deciding whether the parties should be treated as neighbours' in law, as inHome office v Dorset Yacht Co.Ltd, but it is not an essential requirement.However, although this test does provide a broad framework for the establishment of a duty of care, in practice the detailed rules have come to differ according to the following factors: the type of damage sustained (the three main categories being personal injury and/ or property, pure economic loss and, as relevant to this case, psychiatric injury); whether the damage was caused by an act or omission; whether it was caused by a third party; and whether the defendant(s) fall within a range of groups who have become subject to special rules.To that end, it is clear that the claims against the defendant in this case are all concerning psychiatric injury. In order for a claimant to claim for psychiatric illness, a claimant must prove that they have suffered, what Lord Bridge described inMcloughlin v O'Brianas a positive psychiatric illness.'Additionally, medical evidence will be needed to prove this. Furthermore, claimants who can prove such injury can only claim in negligence if they can establish that they are owed a duty of care by the defendant, as discussed above, with regard to psychiatric injury. Moreover, this will depend on their relationship to the event which caused the shock.To do so will require the examination of the case law which has developed sets of rules, covering different categories of claimant. The number of categories has varied at different stages of the law's development, but since the most recent House of Lords case,White and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, there are now three categories. However, in the light of the claims in this case, only two categories are relevant, those being; i) those who were put in danger of physical harm, but actually suffer only psychiatric injury.This law essay is an example of a student's workDisclaimerThis essay has been submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies. This is not an example of the work written by our professional law writers.Law Essay Writing ServiceLaw Assignment Writing ServiceLaw Coursework Writing ServiceWho wrote this essay?Freelance Writing JobsPlace an OrderVictims who fall into this category, are termed primary victims; and ii) those who are not put in danger of physical injury to themselves, but suffer psychiatric injury as a result of witnessing such injury to others; these are called secondary victims. A duty of care to secondary victims will arise only if they can satisfy very restrictive requirements.In turning to the case in hand, as regards to Billie's claim of negligence against the defendant, it seems clear from the statement that he is a primary victim in this case. The ordinary rules in negligence, as established above, apply to such a case. It is recognised in law that motorists owe a duty of care to other road users, thus, satisfying the first requirement in order for negligence to be established.Likewise, it is clear that the defendant negligently breached this duty, due to a lapse in concentration whilst in charge of a motor vehicle. Furthermore, despite the fact that Billy did not suffer any physical injuries, it is stated that Billy does suffer psychiatric injury in the form of post-traumatic stress disorder. InMcLoughlin v O'BrianLord Bridge recognized PTSD, amongst others, as a positive psychiatric illness', furthermore liability for psychiatric damage was established in the leading case ofDulieu v White & Sons.InDulieu, Kennedy J stated in an obiter dictum that liability for psychiatric illness was limited by a requirement that there must be shock which arises from a reasonable fear of injury to oneself'.The defendant was found liable even though there was no physical injury, as he had foreseen that the claimant would have suffered shock. In addition,White and others v C.C South Yorkshire Policeconfirms that if a person negligently exposes another to a risk of injury they will be liable for any psychological damage that this may cause the person, even if the threatened physical injury does not in fact happen. To that end it would be probable that a claim for negligence, with regards to this situation,would be successful. However, as fore mentioned medical evidence is needed to prove any psychiatric illness and without this obligatory evidence, any grounds for a claim in negligence would be insignificant.In addressing Minty's position, it is clear from the statement that Minty is not physically injured in the incident. Furthermore, despite not seeing the actual incident, he hears the crash and arrives on the scene within seconds. The sudden shock of witnessing the aftermath scenes of the accident triggers a previous psychological condition.White and Others v C.C South Yorkshire Policeestablishes that sufferers of psychiatric injury who are not either physically injured or in danger of being physically injured are to be considered secondary victims.This provides the authority to class Minty as a secondary victim in this case.McLoughlin v O'Brian and Alcock v Chief Constable of Yorkshire, established that secondary victims could only claim for psychiatric injury in very limited circumstances,Whiteconfirms these limitations. InMcLoughlin v O'Brian, it is evident that this case bears much resemblance to the case involving Minty, the key difference here is that Minty is a witness and is on the scene within seconds of the accident, thus putting him in the realms of proximity.Additionally, the facts in this case are similar to that ofBourhill v Young. NotwithstandingBourhillthe law relating to nervous shock' has moved on significantly from this decision, albeit that the reluctance to compensate for harm caused by psychiatric means persist. However, it is stated in this case that the shock that Minty sufferers due to the scenes witnessed, triggered a previous psychological condition. InPage v Smiththe plaintiff, suffered the recrudescence of a psychological condition, allegedly due to a car accident in which he was involved.The plaintiff was successful at first instance. However, the defendant appealed against this decision primarily on the basis that it had not been reasonably foreseeable that a person of normal fortitude would have suffered psychiatric injury. Though on appeal to the House of Lords Lord Lloyd stated;There is no justification for regarding physical and psychiatric injury as different kinds' of injury.In this case the plaintiff was successful and the appeal was allowed. Although, this is distinguished from the case involving Minty, for inPage v Smithit is clear in this case the plaintiff is a primary victim. Therefore, in Minty's case a claim will only be successful if a duty of care can be found as regards to Minty. Furthermore, further limitation on the duty of care in cases of psychiatric shock was added in Greatorex v Geatorex, in which it was held that primary victim cannot owe a duty to secondary victims.This law essay is an example of a student's workDisclaimerThis essay has been submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies. This is not an example of the work written by our professional law writers.Law Essay Writing ServiceLaw Assignment Writing ServiceLaw Coursework Writing ServiceWho wrote this essay?Freelance Writing JobsPlace an OrderTo the end it appears that any claim by Minty in negligence would be unsuccessful, unless, it can be proved that he falls within the class of people which the law allows to claim for such injuries. One of those possible classes able to claim includes, relatives or friends of those killed or injured as a result of the defendant's negligence. This will only apply in this case if Minty's relationship to Phil is found to be sufficient. In Alcock the point was made that there might be very rare occasions when an accident was so horrific that psychiatric damage to even uninvolved bystanders was foreseeable, and there a duty of care would arise.Furthermore, another test which secondary victims must pass in order to have a claim concerns proximity. In Alcock it was established that a witness must have been sufficiently proximate of the accident, which means they must have been present at the scene of the accident or its immediate aftermath. It is clear in Minty's case that he satisfies this requirement. If Minty can gratify each of the afore mentioned categories, a claim in negligence may be successful.Moving on, and turning attention now to this case involving the emergency services. A further class of people who are classed as secondary victims are rescuers at the scene of accidents. The question that needs to be answered in this case is, what requirements must a rescuer now satisfy in order to bring a claim for nervous shock?' InWhite v Chief Constable of South Yorkshirethe House of Lords denied that any distinctive duty is owed to a person simply by virtue of his employment relationship with the defendant or his status as a rescuer.As the plaintiffs in this case were not personally threatened' or in a relationship of love and affection with any of the deceased, it followed that their claims had to fail. To that end, this appears to provide the authority to envisage that any claim by the paramedics would be unsuccessful, for they were never in any real danger of injury. However, it is stated in this case that the fire service, were involved in the incident.Moreover, where put in a position of real danger. In White v CC of South Yorkshire, a number of police officers sued their employer, in respect of PTSD suffered in the aftermath of Hillsborough football disaster. This case can be distinguished from the case in question for the fire servicemen's claim is against Ian and not there employer. Furthermore, on appeal it was held inWhitethat for policy reasons the actions should be dismissed, though technically they should have succeeded. For reasons established it is therefore unlikely that if the fire servicemen pursue a claim, it would be successful.Switching attention now to the situation concerning Peggy. It is stated that she is informed of the accident by Phil's wife, Stella. Thus constituting a third party in this instance. She then rushes to the hospital, but only arrives ten hours later, upon which she sees the body of her dead son and seriously ill grandchildren. This results in PTSD. To reiterate, any psychological condition will need to be supported with medical evidence.This situation raises the issue of proximity. In McLoughlin v O'Brian, the House of Lords made it clear that merely being informed of the incident by a third party was not sufficiently proximate. To add in McLoughlin Lord Ackner stated that identifying the body of a loved one, eight hours after the accident did not fall within the immediate aftermath of the tragedy.However, this runs contrary to the decision in Hevican v Raune, which was decided afterAlcock.In this casea father was informed of his son's death at the police station, then identified his body in the mortuary. He was liable to claim damages for nervous shock that he suffered. Conversely, in the light of thedictainAlcockit is unlikely that this case would be decided in the same way today. For these reasons any claim by Peggy is also probable to be unsuccessful.Finally, as regards to Stella's position in this case. It is stated that she is informed of the incident by the police, again constituting a third party, and she identifies Phil's body at the scene. This could be seen as a break in the chain of causation, as regards to Ian, for it is the police who inform her of the accident from which she suffers PTSD, and not a direct result of Ian's negligence. Furthermore, inAlcockLord Keith states;Liability for injury in the particular form of psychiatric illness must depend in addition upon a requisite relationship of proximity between the claimant and the said party to owe the duty ties of love and affection are numerous, and it is the existence of such ties which lead to mental disturbance when the loved one suffers a catastrophe the closeness of the tie would, however, require to be proved by the plaintiffthis may be stronger in the case of engaged couples than in persons who have been married for many yearsTo that end it would appear that all ties of love and affection, as regards to Stella and Phil, were severed, in light of the fact that she left Phil to take up residence with her new partner Grant. Moreover she had not spoken to Phil in over Six Months. For reasons identified it would be unlikely that any claim on Stella's part would be successful.To conclude, Negligence is a fault based tort. To be successful in an action a claimant must prove all of the earlier discussed criterions. To that end, in Billie's case, if he can support his medical condition with evidence, it is likely he would succeed in an action against Ian. In the case of Minty, If he can pass the tests and satisfy the requirements that establish secondary victims, he could also be successful.However, claimants of Minty's type only succeed in very limited circumstances, and any action by Minty is more likely to fail. With regards to the Emergency services, It is seems almost certain that any claim by the paramedics would fail. Likewise, despite the fact the fire service are put in danger, it also seems unlikely that a claim would succeed. Finally, in Peggy's case, for reasons established, it seems she would be probable to fail in an action. In addition, it also appears that Stella's claim would be unlikely to succeed.

Read more at Law Teacher:http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/tort-law/negligence-damage-injury-tort-law.php#ixzz3U2SXmUTsIntroductionThe definition of negligence is the breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man, which is guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do (Agarwal, 2011). Actionable negligence consists in the neglect of the use of ordinary care or skill towards a person to whom the defendant owes the duty of observing ordinary care and skill, by which neglecting the plaintiff has suffered injury to his/her person or property (Agarwal, 2011). The birth of negligence started by the court case of Donoghue V Stevenson (1932), apparently Donoghues friend had purchased a bottle of ginger beer which is manufactured by Stevenson and gave it to Donogue. She drank most of the bottle but then noticed the decomposed remains of a snail in the bottom of the bottle and sued Stevenson for causing negligence in a form of injuries or losses. From there on, Donoghue V Stevenson (1932) is the hallmark case for negligence.This essay is an example of a student's workDisclaimerThis essay has been submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.Essay Writing ServiceDissertation Writing ServiceWho wrote this essayPlace an OrderMedical NegligenceMedical negligence or malpractice is defined as the failure or deviation from medical professional duty of care such as a failure to exercise an accepted standard of care in medical professional skills or knowledge, resulting in injury, damage or loss (Thirumoorthy, 2011). Medical negligence comes under the laws of Tort, and a Tort is a wrongful injury, a private or civil wrong which is not a breach of contract (Thirumoorthy, 2011). Torts may be intentional, when the professional intends to violate legal duty or negligent, when the professional fails to exercise the proper standard of case established by law. In principle, the social aims of the Tort system in medical indemnity have three main purposes which are providing compensation for injuries, creating accountability for actions and fostering patient safety and quality (Thirumoorthy, 2011). The elements that make up medical negligence are a duty of care is owed. The plaintiff must show that the doctor or hospital owes him a duty of care as a patient. A breach of duty of care, the standard of care administered falls below the legal standard. There is causation; the injury suffered was a directly or significantly caused by the breach of duty. Lastly, there is damage; the patient suffered Injury as a result of the breach of duty. If a breach of duty occurs, but does not lead to injury, then negligence cannot be proved. In a bad medical outcome, there are several causes for injury or damage. The hallmark case for medical negligent is Mahon V Osborne (1939) which is about swab being left in a patients body after an operation which causes complication to the patient.Negligent MisstatementThere are two important types of negligence which are required for this assignment; one of its which is negligent misstatement and the other is medical negligence. A negligent misstatement is a claim or action which is brought up by one party against another party at common law in tort (ORiordan, 2007). This claim takes places if the party against whom the claim is brought made a statement which was considered to be negligent which is the Defendant and the party which is bringing the claim which is the Claimant relied this statement to its injury and suffered a loss as a result (Serota, 2012). In order for a claim for negligent misstatement to be successful, the claimant must be able to show the court that on a balance of probabilities the defendant owed them a duty of care (ORiordan, 2007). This duty of care is not to case such harm which was suffered by their negligent misstatement, further that the defendant had breached the duty of care owed and that the claimant has indeed suffered loss. If the claimant cannot satisfy the aforesaid then they will not have a claim for negligent misstatement (ORiordan, 2007). Lastly, if the claimant can show that there was a contract in place between the parties then he or she may be able to sue under the contract for negligent misrepresentation as well as under tort. The hallmark case for Negligence misstatement is Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd V Heller & Partners Ltd (1964) which is an advertising agency sought references from a bank as to the creditworthiness of their client, as they were to act as personal guarantors for payment of advertising, and the bank stated that the client was creditworthy when it was not.Elements of negligenceThe five elements of negligence include duty of care, breached of duty, cause in fact, proximate cause and actual harm. Firstly in duty of care, the outcomes of some negligence cases depend on whether the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff (Grady, 2006). A duty arises when the law recognizes a relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. Due to this relationship, the defendant is obligated to act in a certain manner towards the plaintiff. A judge, rather than a jury, ordinarily determines whether a defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff where a reasonable person would find that a duty exists under a particular set of circumstances, the court will generally finds that such duty exists (Grady, 2006).Breached of duty means a defendant is liable for negligence when the defendant breaches the duty that the defendant owes to the plaintiff (Grady, 2006). The duty is breached by failing to exercise reasonable care in fulfilling the duty. Hence the question of whether the duty exists, the issue of whether the defendant breached a duty of care is decided by a jury as a question of fact.This essay is an example of a student's workDisclaimerThis essay has been submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.Essay Writing ServiceDissertation Writing ServiceWho wrote this essayPlace an OrderCause in fact under traditional rules in negligence cases, a plaintiff must proof that the defendants action actually caused the plaintiff injury (Grady, 2006). This is often referred to as but for test causation. The but for test is to used to establish whether the damage was caused by the breach of the duty of care. If harm to the plaintiff would not have occurred but for the defendants negligence, then the negligence can be classed as a cause for the plaintiffs harm or injury.Proximate cause relates to the scope of a defendants responsibility in a negligence case (Grady, 2006). A defendant in a negligence case is only responsible for the harm that the defendant could have foreseen through his actions (Grady, 2006). If a defendant has caused damages that are outside of the scope of the risk then the defendant could have foreseen, then the plaintiff cannot prove that the defendants actions were the proximate cause of the plaintiffs damages (Grady, 2006).Lastly, actual harm means negligence requires actual physical harm, classically a physical impact. Suppose, however, that the plaintiff has not been physically struck, but has merely suffered emotional distress or economic loss. The modern rules of what constitutes actual harm are much broader than what they used to be. When the defendants negligence has physically injured the plaintiff or destroyed his or her property, actual harm is usually clear.Medical Negligence Case USAThe case that I have chosen for medical negligence is (Rubb V. Balboa Naval Medical Center San Diego). The case shows a medical malpractice involving breach of standard of care. The plaintiff was left with severely brain damaged when the surgeon removed healthy brain tissues in an attempt to treat a mild condition after failing to perform the correct tests. Moreover, the second surgery on the plaintiff ignored standard procedures for this kind of operation and was performed without adequate support staff being available. Thus result in bleeding and brain swelling which left the plaintiff profoundly disabled.The plaintiff was age of 14 which are experiencing several symptoms including headaches, visual defects, balance problems and nausea. The plaintiff is the daughter of retired Marine and army officer and therefore plaintiff seek treatment at Balboa Naval Medical Center San Diego (Guire, 2003). Plaintiff has undergone CT scan and the images from the scan revealed a mild mass comprised of fat and calcification that have developed in the plaintiffs brain (Guire, 2003). However, Dr Grossmith which is the plaintiffs doctor refused to review interpretations of the CT scanned images by neuroradiologists. Instead, Dr Grossmith interpreted the images himself and concluded that plaintiffs symptoms were caused by a tumor. Based on Dr Grossmith interpretation and physical examination, he advised the plaintiff parents that stroke, blindness, or death would result if the tumor was not surgically removed (Guire, 2003).Dr Grossmith attempted to surgically remove the mass, but was unable to reach the mass. Therefore a second surgery was conducted to the plaintiff 3 days after the initial surgery, Dr Grossmith only able to partially extract the suspected tumor, the procedure was disrupted b bleeding and severe swelling of the brain. During the procedure, Dr Grossmith removed a significant portion of plaintiffs healthy brain tissues. Therefore ultimately lead to the plaintiff injuries.Dr Grossmith own a duty of care to the plaintiff and breached multiple standard of care by misinterpreting the CT scanned images by claiming the complications caused to the plaintiff are indeed a tumor in the plaintiffs brain. Secondly, Dr Grossmith breached the standard of care by refusing to review interpretations of the CT scanned images and pursued on his own interpretations. Thirdly Dr Grossmith breached the standard of care by commencing the second surgery after an initial failed attempt. The operation requires a lengthy and complex procedure to commence earlier in the day to ensure availability of addition surgical staff in the event of unexpected complication (Guire, 2003). Dr Grossmith was unable to identify the source of the bleeding that occurred during the second surgery therefore he summoned a colleague from home, which is also one of the reasons that Dr Grossmith has breached the standard of care.Dr Grossmith has satisfied bolam test as a doctor, he should have the upmost responsibility to treat their patient but however, Dr Grossmith ignored standard procedures while conduction operation on the plaintiff which resulted complications to the plaintiff after the operation. Theres a causal link between the plaintiffs complications to Dr Grossmith negligence which satisfied the but for test. The injuries caused to the plaintiff are foreseeable as the injuries are the type which a reasonable doctor can foresee will occur because of the negligence act conducted by Dr Grossmith. Therefore, the Dr Grossmith is liable for causing the damages. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to acquire compensation from the Hospital management amounting to USD $ 3,500,000.00 settlement.This essay is an example of a student's workDisclaimerThis essay has been submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.Essay Writing ServiceDissertation Writing ServiceWho wrote this essayPlace an OrderNegligent Misstatement Case MalaysiaThe case that I have chosen for negligent misstatement is ( Balakrishnan A/L Devaraj. Girija Devy A/P Gopinathan Nair V Admiral Cove Development Sdn Bhd). The case involves breach of duty of care and contract. The plaintiff ( Balakrishnan A/L Devaraj and Girija Devy A/P Gopinathan Nair) is suing the defendant ( Admiral Cove Devlopment Sdn Bhd) for negligent misstatement and misrepresentation. The plaintiffs are the purchasers of a unit, namely an apartment in the project from the defendant. However the proposed project purchased from the defendant was different from what the defendants representative or agent has previously agreed on resulting loss is suffered to the plaintiffs.The plaintiffs have viewed a miniature model of the project displayed at the launching of the project at Shangri-La Hotel, Kuala Lumpur on 13 May 1995. The defendants miniature model and a printed brochure of the proposed project showing a sandy beach front, umbrellas, relaxing easy chairs and sail boats close to the beach and the defendant representatives or agent represented to plaintiffs that the plaintiffs will be able to swim directly upon exiting the said unit. The defendants sales and purchased agreement even stated that the plaintiffs apartment will fulfill to the above facilities upon completion of the proposed project. Upon completion of the proposed project and handover of the said premises to the plaintiffs on 30 June 1998, the plaintiffs found out that the aforesaid representations were false when a wall was erected right across the sea fronting and rocks, stones and boulders all along the front of the sea outside the plaintiffs property. Moreover sewerage discharges being led off visibly into the sea in front of the plaintiffs property. The plaintiffs calms that the wall and rocks have affected their enjoyment of the aforesaid unit by the diminished aesthetic and or environmental conditions.To make the matter even worst, road alterations were being conducted in front of the plaintiffs property and neighboring properties due to sewerage leakage caused by improper fittings. The defendant issued a statement to the plaintiffs notifying them that the plaintiffs property will not be affected during the alteration process. However the defendant found out that the root cause of the sewerage leakage is within the plaintiffs premise which requires demolishing a portion of the premises retaining wall which causes inconvenience to the plaintiffs.The plaintiffs contended that as a consequence of the above, they suffered loss and expense and seek compensations amounting of RM 100,000.00. However the decision of the court allowed the plaintiffs to entitle RM 45,000.00 as compensation from the Defendant.The defendant owes duty of care to the plaintiff as the defendant must take responsibilities as a developer to their purchaser. The defendant has breach the duty of care by making representation which were false due to the presence of a wall, rocks, stone, boulders and the presence of sewerage discharge being led off visibly into the sea in front of the plaintiffs property. The defendant even further breached the duty of care by providing false statements to the plaintiffs, stating that their property will not be affected during the road alteration process. Theres a causal link between the plaintiff damages to the defendant negligence which satisfied the but for test. The plaintiffs damages is reasonable foreseeable. Therefore the defendant is liable for causing the damages. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to acquire a reduced compensation from RM 100,000.00 to RM 45,000.00 from the defendant.ConclusionIn conclusion, negligence is the breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man, which is guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do. The two types of negligence required for this assignment are medical negligent and negligence misstatement. The elements that constitute negligence are duty of care, breached of duty of care, causation and damages.Furthermore, it is important for medical practitioners to be aware that they owe a legal duty of reasonable care to their patients and must exercise appropriate reasoned and responsible judgment at all times. Lastly, developers and other people from all traits must also be aware that they owe a duty of reasonable care and responsibilities to their clients and must exercise appropriate ethical standards in providing information which will not cause any damages to their clients.(2437 words)IntroductionThe definition of negligence is the breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man, which is guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do (Agarwal, 2011). Actionable negligence consists in the neglect of the use of ordinary care or skill towards a person to whom the defendant owes the duty of observing ordinary care and skill, by which neglecting the plaintiff has suffered injury to his/her person or property (Agarwal, 2011). The birth of negligence started by the court case of Donoghue V Stevenson (1932), apparently Donoghues friend had purchased a bottle of ginger beer which is manufactured by Stevenson and gave it to Donogue. She drank most of the bottle but then noticed the decomposed remains of a snail in the bottom of the bottle and sued Stevenson for causing negligence in a form of injuries or losses. From there on, Donoghue V Stevenson (1932) is the hallmark case for negligence.This essay is an example of a student's workDisclaimerThis essay has been submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.Essay Writing ServiceDissertation Writing ServiceWho wrote this essayPlace an OrderMedical NegligenceMedical negligence or malpractice is defined as the failure or deviation from medical professional duty of care such as a failure to exercise an accepted standard of care in medical professional skills or knowledge, resulting in injury, damage or loss (Thirumoorthy, 2011). Medical negligence comes under the laws of Tort, and a Tort is a wrongful injury, a private or civil wrong which is not a breach of contract (Thirumoorthy, 2011). Torts may be intentional, when the professional intends to violate legal duty or negligent, when the professional fails to exercise the proper standard of case established by law. In principle, the social aims of the Tort system in medical indemnity have three main purposes which are providing compensation for injuries, creating accountability for actions and fostering patient safety and quality (Thirumoorthy, 2011). The elements that make up medical negligence are a duty of care is owed. The plaintiff must show that the doctor or hospital owes him a duty of care as a patient. A breach of duty of care, the standard of care administered falls below the legal standard. There is causation; the injury suffered was a directly or significantly caused by the breach of duty. Lastly, there is damage; the patient suffered Injury as a result of the breach of duty. If a breach of duty occurs, but does not lead to injury, then negligence cannot be proved. In a bad medical outcome, there are several causes for injury or damage. The hallmark case for medical negligent is Mahon V Osborne (1939) which is about swab being left in a patients body after an operation which causes complication to the patient.Negligent MisstatementThere are two important types of negligence which are required for this assignment; one of its which is negligent misstatement and the other is medical negligence. A negligent misstatement is a claim or action which is brought up by one party against another party at common law in tort (ORiordan, 2007). This claim takes places if the party against whom the claim is brought made a statement which was considered to be negligent which is the Defendant and the party which is bringing the claim which is the Claimant relied this statement to its injury and suffered a loss as a result (Serota, 2012). In order for a claim for negligent misstatement to be successful, the claimant must be able to show the court that on a balance of probabilities the defendant owed them a duty of care (ORiordan, 2007). This duty of care is not to case such harm which was suffered by their negligent misstatement, further that the defendant had breached the duty of care owed and that the claimant has indeed suffered loss. If the claimant cannot satisfy the aforesaid then they will not have a claim for negligent misstatement (ORiordan, 2007). Lastly, if the claimant can show that there was a contract in place between the parties then he or she may be able to sue under the contract for negligent misrepresentation as well as under tort. The hallmark case for Negligence misstatement is Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd V Heller & Partners Ltd (1964) which is an advertising agency sought references from a bank as to the creditworthiness of their client, as they were to act as personal guarantors for payment of advertising, and the bank stated that the client was creditworthy when it was not.Elements of negligenceThe five elements of negligence include duty of care, breached of duty, cause in fact, proximate cause and actual harm. Firstly in duty of care, the outcomes of some negligence cases depend on whether the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff (Grady, 2006). A duty arises when the law recognizes a relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. Due to this relationship, the defendant is obligated to act in a certain manner towards the plaintiff. A judge, rather than a jury, ordinarily determines whether a defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff where a reasonable person would find that a duty exists under a particular set of circumstances, the court will generally finds that such duty exists (Grady, 2006).Breached of duty means a defendant is liable for negligence when the defendant breaches the duty that the defendant owes to the plaintiff (Grady, 2006). The duty is breached by failing to exercise reasonable care in fulfilling the duty. Hence the question of whether the duty exists, the issue of whether the defendant breached a duty of care is decided by a jury as a question of fact.This essay is an example of a student's workDisclaimerThis essay has been submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.Essay Writing ServiceDissertation Writing ServiceWho wrote this essayPlace an OrderCause in fact under traditional rules in negligence cases, a plaintiff must proof that the defendants action actually caused the plaintiff injury (Grady, 2006). This is often referred to as but for test causation. The but for test is to used to establish whether the damage was caused by the breach of the duty of care. If harm to the plaintiff would not have occurred but for the defendants negligence, then the negligence can be classed as a cause for the plaintiffs harm or injury.Proximate cause relates to the scope of a defendants responsibility in a negligence case (Grady, 2006). A defendant in a negligence case is only responsible for the harm that the defendant could have foreseen through his actions (Grady, 2006). If a defendant has caused damages that are outside of the scope of the risk then the defendant could have foreseen, then the plaintiff cannot prove that the defendants actions were the proximate cause of the plaintiffs damages (Grady, 2006).Lastly, actual harm means negligence requires actual physical harm, classically a physical impact. Suppose, however, that the plaintiff has not been physically struck, but has merely suffered emotional distress or economic loss. The modern rules of what constitutes actual harm are much broader than what they used to be. When the defendants negligence has physically injured the plaintiff or destroyed his or her property, actual harm is usually clear.Medical Negligence Case USAThe case that I have chosen for medical negligence is (Rubb V. Balboa Naval Medical Center San Diego). The case shows a medical malpractice involving breach of standard of care. The plaintiff was left with severely brain damaged when the surgeon removed healthy brain tissues in an attempt to treat a mild condition after failing to perform the correct tests. Moreover, the second surgery on the plaintiff ignored standard procedures for this kind of operation and was performed without adequate support staff being available. Thus result in bleeding and brain swelling which left the plaintiff profoundly disabled.The plaintiff was age of 14 which are experiencing several symptoms including headaches, visual defects, balance problems and nausea. The plaintiff is the daughter of retired Marine and army officer and therefore plaintiff seek treatment at Balboa Naval Medical Center San Diego (Guire, 2003). Plaintiff has undergone CT scan and the images from the scan revealed a mild mass comprised of fat and calcification that have developed in the plaintiffs brain (Guire, 2003). However, Dr Grossmith which is the plaintiffs doctor refused to review interpretations of the CT scanned images by neuroradiologists. Instead, Dr Grossmith interpreted the images himself and concluded that plaintiffs symptoms were caused by a tumor. Based on Dr Grossmith interpretation and physical examination, he advised the plaintiff parents that stroke, blindness, or death would result if the tumor was not surgically removed (Guire, 2003).Dr Grossmith attempted to surgically remove the mass, but was unable to reach the mass. Therefore a second surgery was conducted to the plaintiff 3 days after the initial surgery, Dr Grossmith only able to partially extract the suspected tumor, the procedure was disrupted b bleeding and severe swelling of the brain. During the procedure, Dr Grossmith removed a significant portion of plaintiffs healthy brain tissues. Therefore ultimately lead to the plaintiff injuries.Dr Grossmith own a duty of care to the plaintiff and breached multiple standard of care by misinterpreting the CT scanned images by claiming the complications caused to the plaintiff are indeed a tumor in the plaintiffs brain. Secondly, Dr Grossmith breached the standard of care by refusing to review interpretations of the CT scanned images and pursued on his own interpretations. Thirdly Dr Grossmith breached the standard of care by commencing the second surgery after an initial failed attempt. The operation requires a lengthy and complex procedure to commence earlier in the day to ensure availability of addition surgical staff in the event of unexpected complication (Guire, 2003). Dr Grossmith was unable to identify the source of the bleeding that occurred during the second surgery therefore he summoned a colleague from home, which is also one of the reasons that Dr Grossmith has breached the standard of care.Dr Grossmith has satisfied bolam test as a doctor, he should have the upmost responsibility to treat their patient but however, Dr Grossmith ignored standard procedures while conduction operation on the plaintiff which resulted complications to the plaintiff after the operation. Theres a causal link between the plaintiffs complications to Dr Grossmith negligence which satisfied the but for test. The injuries caused to the plaintiff are foreseeable as the injuries are the type which a reasonable doctor can foresee will occur because of the negligence act conducted by Dr Grossmith. Therefore, the Dr Grossmith is liable for causing the damages. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to acquire compensation from the Hospital management amounting to USD $ 3,500,000.00 settlement.This essay is an example of a student's workDisclaimerThis essay has been submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.Essay Writing ServiceDissertation Writing ServiceWho wrote this essayPlace an OrderNegligent Misstatement Case MalaysiaThe case that I have chosen for negligent misstatement is ( Balakrishnan A/L Devaraj. Girija Devy A/P Gopinathan Nair V Admiral Cove Development Sdn Bhd). The case involves breach of duty of care and contract. The plaintiff ( Balakrishnan A/L Devaraj and Girija Devy A/P Gopinathan Nair) is suing the defendant ( Admiral Cove Devlopment Sdn Bhd) for negligent misstatement and misrepresentation. The plaintiffs are the purchasers of a unit, namely an apartment in the project from the defendant. However the proposed project purchased from the defendant was different from what the defendants representative or agent has previously agreed on resulting loss is suffered to the plaintiffs.The plaintiffs have viewed a miniature model of the project displayed at the launching of the project at Shangri-La Hotel, Kuala Lumpur on 13 May 1995. The defendants miniature model and a printed brochure of the proposed project showing a sandy beach front, umbrellas, relaxing easy chairs and sail boats close to the beach and the defendant representatives or agent represented to plaintiffs that the plaintiffs will be able to swim directly upon exiting the said unit. The defendants sales and purchased agreement even stated that the plaintiffs apartment will fulfill to the above facilities upon completion of the proposed project. Upon completion of the proposed project and handover of the said premises to the plaintiffs on 30 June 1998, the plaintiffs found out that the aforesaid representations were false when a wall was erected right across the sea fronting and rocks, stones and boulders all along the front of the sea outside the plaintiffs property. Moreover sewerage discharges being led off visibly into the sea in front of the plaintiffs property. The plaintiffs calms that the wall and rocks have affected their enjoyment of the aforesaid unit by the diminished aesthetic and or environmental conditions.To make the matter even worst, road alterations were being conducted in front of the plaintiffs property and neighboring properties due to sewerage leakage caused by improper fittings. The defendant issued a statement to the plaintiffs notifying them that the plaintiffs property will not be affected during the alteration process. However the defendant found out that the root cause of the sewerage leakage is within the plaintiffs premise which requires demolishing a portion of the premises retaining wall which causes inconvenience to the plaintiffs.The plaintiffs contended that as a consequence of the above, they suffered loss and expense and seek compensations amounting of RM 100,000.00. However the decision of the court allowed the plaintiffs to entitle RM 45,000.00 as compensation from the Defendant.The defendant owes duty of care to the plaintiff as the defendant must take responsibilities as a developer to their purchaser. The defendant has breach the duty of care by making representation which were false due to the presence of a wall, rocks, stone, boulders and the presence of sewerage discharge being led off visibly into the sea in front of the plaintiffs property. The defendant even further breached the duty of care by providing false statements to the plaintiffs, stating that their property will not be affected during the road alteration process. Theres a causal link between the plaintiff damages to the defendant negligence which satisfied the but for test. The plaintiffs damages is reasonable foreseeable. Therefore the defendant is liable for causing the damages. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to acquire a reduced compensation from RM 100,000.00 to RM 45,000.00 from the defendant.ConclusionIn conclusion, negligence is the breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man, which is guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do. The two types of negligence required for this assignment are medical negligent and negligence misstatement. The elements that constitute negligence are duty of care, breached of duty of care, causation and damages.Furthermore, it is important for medical practitioners to be aware that they owe a legal duty of reasonable care to their patients and must exercise appropriate reasoned and responsible judgment at all times. Lastly, developers and other people from all traits must also be aware that they owe a duty of reasonable care and responsibilities to their clients and must exercise appropriate ethical standards in providing information which will not cause any damages to their clients.(2437 words)