The duty in negligence is not absolute. Negligence is failing to meet the standard of care that would be expected of a reasonable man in the circumstances of D. Thus once it is established that the defendant owed a duty the claimant must show that the defendant caused the harm by failing to take the care required by the duty. This raises two questions: first, what is the standard of care expected? And, second, did D’s conduct fall below that standard? In this lecture these issues are considered in detail.
Lecturer: Gianni Vuolo
Duration: 53 minutes (approx)
Order securely online and get immediate access to the lecture.
More recordings in the Law of Tort
- Negligence – liability for words and economic loss Q&A
- Negligence: liability for omissions and nervous shock Q&A
- Nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher Q&A
- Occupiers Liability Q&A 2
- Tort part A 2022 – Can the Supreme Court halt the ongoing expansion of vicarious liability?
- Common law torts relating to land.
- Public bodies
- Negligence – economic loss
- Liability for omissions
- Causation and remoteness
- Breach of duty
- Negligence – psychiatric harm
- Defamation Q&A
- Negligence – psychiatric harm Q&A