Notes

Activity 1
Negligence is a legal concept requiring a claimant to prove three essential elements: duty of care, breach of that duty, and damage caused by the breach.

Delroy Jones, as the claimant, seeks to establish that Marco Green owed him a duty of care, that this duty was breached due to Marco’s alleged substandard actions, and that this breach caused both personal injury and property damage. Relevant legal principles and case law, including Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2018), Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990), Wells v Cooper (1958), Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856), and Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969), will guide this assessment.

The first part of a negligence claim is the duty of care. A duty arises where there is proximity between the claimant and defendant, where harm is reasonably foreseeable, and where it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose such a duty. In Robinson, the court clarified that the duty arises naturally in many situations where harm is a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s actions. Similarly, Caparo introduced a three-stage test of proximity, foreseeability, and fairness, which applies here. Delroy and Marco shared a direct relationship as Marco was responsible for the actions alleged to have caused harm, satisfying proximity. It is also foreseeable that careless actions, such as substandard workmanship, could lead to harm. Imposing a duty in this context aligns with public policy, and thus, Marco likely owed Delroy a duty of care.

The second element is breach of duty, which occurs when a defendant fails to meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in similar circumstances. In Blyth, negligence was defined as the omission of reasonable care. The standard of care depends on the defendant’s skill or expertise, as demonstrated in Wells v Cooper, where an amateur carpenter was judged against the standard of a reasonably competent amateur. This precedent is particularly relevant to Marco, as he would not be held to the higher standard expected of a professional but instead to that of a competent individual undertaking similar tasks. If evidence shows that Marco’s actions fell below this standard, a breach of duty will have occurred.

The third element involves damage and causation. To prove damage, Delroy must establish factual causation, often through the “but for” test: would the harm have occurred but for Marco’s alleged breach? This principle was clarified in Barnett, where the court held that the defendant was not liable because the harm would have occurred regardless of their actions. Delroy must also prove legal causation by demonstrating that the harm was not too remote, as explained in The Wagon Mound (No. 1). If Marco’s breach directly caused Delroy’s injuries and property damage without any intervening acts, causation will be established.

In conclusion, Marco likely owed Delroy a duty of care due to the relationship between them and the foreseeability of harm. Whether Marco breached that duty will depend on whether his actions aligned with the standard of a reasonably competent amateur. If his workmanship was adequate, the claim may fail. However, if it is proven that his actions were substandard and directly caused the injury and damage, Delroy is likely to succeed in his claim.