2
Negligence: The Basic Principles of Duty of Care
The arrangement of this and subsequent chapters
Negligence is a large and amorphous subject, and all parts of the law on it are interlocking. It is often difficult to understand one part without having studied the whole, and therefore in arranging the material I have decided to set out the basic principles first, leaving the more sophisticated developments until later. Accordingly the next three chapters on duty, standard of care, causation and remoteness of damage aim to explain the basic negligence action, principally in relation to an action for personal injuries or property damage where the concepts are easiest to understand. More difficult duty problems, such as liability for statements or for pure economic loss, will be dealt with later. Duty is but one element in the tort of negligence, for it must be shown that not only was the defendant under a duty towards the claimant to be careful, but also that he failed to achieve the required standard of care and that that failure caused the damage, and finally that the damage was not too remote a consequence of the act. Duty is about relationships, and it must be shown that the particular defendant stood in the required relationship to the claimant such that he came under an obligation to use care towards him. This relationship is sometimes referred to as ‘proximity’. In cases of personal injury or damage to property the necessary relationship is established if the defendant ought to have foreseen damage to the claimant whereas in other cases a closer relationship may be required. Thus, duty means ‘proximity’ in the legal sense (this has nothing to do with geographical proximity), and proximity means the level of closeness of relationship required for the particular kind of damage. Thus, a closer relationship than mere foresight will be required for some kinds of