Tort of Negligence: Deals with legal liabolity and consequences arising from

negligent conduct. Tort of TYPES OF LOSSES

Basis: Duty of Care
Liability: Breasch of that duty of care Negligence
Consequences: Remedies Negligent Acts/Omissions: Physical injury or physical damage - Recoverable
Damage resulting from that breach, where resulting damage cannot be too remote Physical damage to Property:
Defendant's negligence causes damage to plaintiff’s property
2. BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE Distinction between different types of damage: Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin &
1.DUTY OF CARE Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973] QB 27
Spandeck v DSTA (2007) –SG APPROACH 1) What is standard of care required?
2)Did Df’s conduct fall below that standard? Note: Defective product – in tort - is not considered property damage (rather,
2-Stage Test: economic loss). Only considered property damage if defective product causes damage
(0) Factual Foreseeability Factors Deternining Standard of Care:
1. Level of Skill to something else
From Df’s actions , was it factually foreseeable that it could Case 2: Sunrise Crane(2004)
have caused harm(any type) to a grp of ppl that involves Pf  Assuming a reasonable person in the Df’s shoes.
2. Likelihood of Injury
Negligent Acts/Omissions: Economic Loss
 If high, then courts will require a higher standard of care Case
- Circumstantial proximity(who): How am I related 1) Econ loss consequent upon physical injury/damage – Recoverable
1
to you? EG I and the little boy are strangers, here by 2) Pure Economic Loss – Diff approaches
3. Seriousness of Injury
coincidence England: Murphy v BrentWood(1991) Pure econ loss arising from defective pdts/service
 More serious the likely injury, the higher the standard of care
- Causal Proximity (How): How are my actions more related to contract, remedies should be contractual rather than tort based
required of Df
related to the other? EG I push the little boy into the pool SG: Approved in Spandeck: Ok, if no danger of indeterminate liability
4. Cost of avoiding risk
 Any kind of harm, to class of ppl include Pf RSP Architects v Ocean Front Pte Ltd(1995)
 Where risk of harm to Pf is high, DF is expected to take steps
(1) Proximity RSP Architects v MCST Plan No. 1705(1999)
to minimise risk even if such steps involve substantial costs.
Physical: - Is there pjhsyical proximity(where): Where am I, Case 3:
close by to other party? Case 1:Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 re injury by cricket ball Negligent Acts.Omissions causing Nervous Shock of Psychiatric Harm:
Circumstantial Proximity(who): How is Df related to Pf? Case 2: Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367: Plaintiff had Where a person suffers anxiety or distress amounting to psychiatric illness after an incident
Causal Proximity(How): How are Df’s actions related to Pf? only one good eye negligently caused by defendant:
Twin criteria of voluntary assumption of responsibility and Case 3: Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643: Slippery factory floor not Undergoing (as a “primary victim” – Page v Smith), or
reliance considered enough risk to justify closing factory Witnessing or hearing (as a “secondary victim”)
 Df’s control over the situation Singapore: Single test (Spandeck) –
 Pf’s reliance and vulnerability Standard of Care relating to Professionals;
 Df’s knowledge of risk of harm For diagnosis and Treatment: Case 1: Ngiam Kong Seng v Lim Chiew Hock (2008)
Note: If there are positive answers for (0) and (1), a prima Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee(1957) Additional threshold requirement: “Recognizable psychiatric illness”
facie duty of care arose A doctor is not guilty of negligence if he has “acted in accordance with 3 factors in McLoughlin: (1) Class of persons whose claims should be recognised
(2)Policy Considerations a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men (circumstantial proximity), (2) Proximity of the claimants to the accident (physical
 Whether or not to negate this prima facie skilled in that perticular art proximity), and (3) The means by which the shock is caused (causal proximity)
Allows court to avoid finding liability eve if proximity and Modified by test in Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] Then, apply the 2nd stage: Policy Considerations
foreseeabilility established AC 232: Case 2: McLoughlin v O’Brian (1983)
 Vagueness of concept allows great latitude Court must be satified such that exponents of opinion relied on can Case 3: Pang Koi Fa v Lim Djoe Phing (1993)
EG of Policy Arguments: demonstrate that such opinion has a ‘logical basis’
(A)”Floodgate” arguments Negligent Misstatement
For giving inof and advice – “Montgomery Test”:
Finding a duty in this case would lead to widespread Case: Hedley Byrne &Co Ltd v Heller [1964]
(a) whether, from the patient’s perspective, the information in question
litigation Held: A negligent misstatement can give rise to liability in tort for economic loss.
would be relevant and material to a reasonable patient in his particular
(B)Inimical (harmful,hostile, obstruct) to scheme of a statute The law will imply a duty of care when a party seeking information from a party possessed of
position; or
Area is alr regulated by a statute, would interfere with that special skill trusts him to exercise due care, and that party knew or ought to have known that
(b) whether it was information that the doctor knew was important to the
regime to impose duty reliance was being placed on his skill and judgment
particular patient in question
(C)Would interfere with existing conttractual arrangements (voluntary) assumption of responsibility and reliance
More recently: Section 37 Civil Law Act
Don't sue the superintendent Officer, sue me as owner and Elaboration:
bring me to court not him Is the adviser getting rewarded in some form?
Res Ipsa Loquitur
(D)Would lead to undesirably defensive behaviour Payment for info/advice  Evid that advice is being Irelied onI and informer/adviser knows it is
(aid Pf when hard to find evid to show breach of DOC)
Free advice: Exercise greater care in distinguishing b/w social and professional rs, and bw
Rule of Evidence  Shift BoP to rebutt to Df
contractual character or not
 “The Thing Speaks for Itself’
Purpose of & Reliance on Advice
Case: Scott v London & St Katherine Docks Co (1865) 3H & C 596
CourtLegal Requirements:
requires that:
Tort of (1) 1) Dutyknows
Advicser of Care
orowed
oughtbyto Df
knowto Pf
that advisee is likely to rely upon advice AND
(2) 2) Df must hae
It is generally breached
reasonable forhis DOC to
advisee to Pf
do that
3) Resulting Damage Remoteness Negligence Case:3)CaparoDf’s Industrice
breach must have caused damage suffered by plaintiff
v Dickman(1990)
Factual Causation Limits scope of damage which may be claimed against a Note: Damage resulting from that breach, where resulting damage cannot be too remote.
“But-For Test” Case 1 defendant Pf must have taken steps to mitigate loss too.
 Considers whether Pf would have suffered harm if DF has not 1. Direct consequence test: Re Polemis (Rejected in Wagon
been negligent.If more than one cause, court has to decide the Mound)
 If the legal requirements are met, Pf will succeed in his action unless Df can raise
valid defences.

Defences:
(1) Illegality (ex turpi causa).
(2) Volunatry assumption of risk (violenti no fit injuria)
(3) Exemption of liability
(4) Contributory negligence.

Note: (1) If either of 1st 2 defences is proved, Df is not legally liable to Pf under tort of
negligence.
Mitigation
(2) If defence of contributory negligence is proven, Df will only be partially liable to the pf.
It is defendant’s burden to show that the plaintiff ought to
(3) If an exemption of liability, it depends on whether purported exemption entirely excludes
have taken reasonable steps to prevent or reduce the
or merely limits extent of liability.
plaintiff’s loss. In that event the loss claimable by the
plaintiff would be reduced accordingly

Case: Donoghue v Stevenson(1932)

Measurement/Assessment Neighbour Principle: Who, in law, is my neighbour?
Aim of damages in tort: To put plaintiff, so far as money can, in the position he would have been in if the tort had not occurred Reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be
likely to injure your neighbour…persons who are so closely and directly affceted by my act
(1) Personal Injury Cases that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am
Pf can claim for general damages eg pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, and future loss of earnings. directing my mind to the acts and omissions which are called in question.
(2) Special Damages
Special damages such as loss of earnings and medical expenses that have been reasonably incurred may, subject to proof, be recovered. DEFENCES Even if liability is prima facie established:
(3) Death Cases.
A claim for bereavement expenses may be made for benefit of specified dependents.
(4) Property Damage cases Ex Turpi Causa
Quantum for damages for property damage is based on costs of repair or diminution in value of property (Illegality – No Action ought to be founded on a wicked
(5) Economic Loss cases act)
 Ascertained by precise scope of DOC in a particular case which may result in diff damages This has a limited application. The fact that the plaintiff is
involved in some wrongdoing does not of itself provide a
Contributory Negligence
good defence to the defendant.
 Injury partly contributed to by Pf’s own fault
SECTION 3: CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND PERSONAL INJURIES ACT (CNPIA)
Section 3(1) : Violenti Non Fit Injuria (Voluntary assumption of risk)
Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the “What a person consents to is not an injury”
fault of any other person or persons, a claim in respect of that damage shall not be Plaintiff must have appreciated the extent of the risk (of
defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage, but the damages the Defendant’s negligence) and accepted it
recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and Volenti is a complete defence
equitable having regard to the claimant’s share in the responsibility for the damage.
Section 3(2):
Subsection (1) shall not operate to defeat any defence arising under a contract. Exemption of Liability
MISC. Section 3(3) A person can exempt (or limit) himself from negligence
Where any contract or written law providing for the limitation of liability is applicable to the liability subject to rules relating to Exemption Clauses.
claim, the amount of damages recoverable by the claimant under subsection (1) shall not
Vicarious Liability exceed the maximum limit so applicable. Concurrent Liability in Tort of Negligence and Conrract:
Director’s liability for company’s Negligence:
Employers are vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of employees In principle, a defendant can be liable in both tort and contract for the
Director of a company is not generally liable for company’s
while acting in the course of their employment same conduct
negligent conduct.
But court may decide that the particular contract is inconsistent with any
Director is regarded in law as separate entity from company
tort liability - e.g., Spandeck case; PT Bumi case (2004)
 Tortious acts/omissions of company cannot cormally be
The tort remedy would (also) be applicable unless it is limited or
imputed to directors
excluded by the agreement of the parties concerned
However: Director may be personally liable for authorising company’s