Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort

Product Information

In Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co., (1856) LR 11 Exch. 781; ALDERSON, B. defined negligence as, negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man…….. would do, or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do.

Discussion of hundreds of recent cases, including Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales , Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Poole BC v GN (duty of care); Patel v Mirza (illegality); Wilkes v DePuy International (product liability); Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (defamation); O v Rhodes (intentional infliction of physical or emotional harm); Willers v Joyce (malicious prosecution); JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov (No.14) (conspiracy); and five major Supreme Court decisions on vicarious liability and non-delegable duties, including Barclays Bank v Various Claimants and WM Morrison Supermarkets v Various Claimants M.N. Shukla, The Law of Torts and Consumer Protection Act, 18th Edition 2010; Published by Central Law Agency, Allahabad.Secondly, multiple cases must be satisfied, as where there are a number of possible causes of injury, the claimant must prove the defendants breach of duty caused the harm or was a material contribution, as established in Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority. Thirdly, the courts will consider the seriousness of harm as sometimes, the risk of harm may be low but this will be counter-balanced by the gravity of harm to a particularly vulnerable claimant. See, for example , Paris v Stepney Borough Council

In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sushila Devi, AIR 1999 SC 1929; a person passing by the road died because of fall of branch of a tree standing on the road, on his head. The Municipal Corporation was held liable.

How To Submit Your Article:

In Brown v. Kendal, (1859) 6 Cussing 292; the plaintiff’s and defendant’s dogs were fighting, while the defendant was trying to separate them, he accidentally hit the plaintiff in his eye who was standing nearby. The injury to the plaintiff was held to be result of inevitable accident and the defendant was not liable. The courts must first consider whether the consequences of the defendant’s acts were reasonably foreseeable. For example, damage or harm were reasonable foreseeable in Kent v Griffiths but not in Bourhill v Young. WINFIELD AND JOLOWICZ: According to Winfield and Jolowicz- Negligence is the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage, undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff [Ref. Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, Ninth Edition, 1971, p. 45]. INEVITABLE ACCIDENT: Inevitable accident also works as a defence of negligence. An inevitable accident is that which could not possibly, be prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill. it means accident physically unavoidable.