Law – 4 Law of tort | e-Consult
4 Law of tort (1 questions)
Login to see all questions.
Click on a question to view the answer
Model Answer:
- Duty of Care: Established under the neighbour principle (Caparo v Dickman). The driver owed the plaintiff a duty to drive with reasonable care to avoid causing foreseeable personal injury.
- Breach of Duty: Measured by the standard of the reasonable driver. The breach is proved if the defendant’s conduct fell below that standard (e.g., speeding, failure to keep a proper lookout).
- Causation: Two stages:
- Factual causation: “But for” the defendant’s breach, the injury would not have occurred (the “but‑for” test).
- Legal causation: The loss must be not too remote; the “reasonable foreseeability” test applies (Wagon Mound (No 2)).
- Remoteness: The damage must be a type of loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Whiplash is a recognised type of personal injury that is foreseeable from a collision, satisfying the remoteness requirement.
Summary Table of Key Tests
| Stage | Test Applied | Result Required |
| Duty of Care | Neighbour principle (Caparo) – foreseeability, proximity, fairness. | A duty exists between driver and other road users. |
| Breach | Reasonable person standard – what a competent driver would do. | Defendant’s conduct fell below that standard. |
| Causation – Factual | “But‑for” test. | But for the breach, the whiplash would not have occurred. |
| Causation – Legal | Reasonable foreseeability (Wagon Mound). | The type of injury was foreseeable. |
| Remoteness | Foreseeability of the kind of loss. | Whiplash is a foreseeable consequence of a collision. |