He was off work for a week as a result of his injuries, causing him lost wages of 1,000. He now wishes to claim compensation for his injury and lost wages.
2) On another occasion Whacky's workmen were digging the road outside the new factory and mistakenly cut through the main power cable, causing a power cut to the surrounding area. Smallwood Primary School was located further down the road. When the power went off the school closed for the rest of the day. Some children came past where the road was being dug. Sonia, aged 9, fell into the hole and was badly injured.
3) Big plc, whose premises were further along the road, lost their power supply for the rest of that day. All of their business was generated on computer, and therefore they closed for the rest of the day. They are arguing that they suffered lost business as a result and want to claim 10,000 as compensation for the profit that they would have made that day.
4) Baljit was walking past the building site when a piece of brick flew over the wall and struck her on the head. She was knocked unconscious and an ambulance was called. Because of a shortage of ambulance staff, the ambulance did not arrive for 30 minutes. Baljit was conscious again when she arrived at hospital. A doctor came to see her and said, "you have only got a scratch" and covered the injury with a plaster. He told her to have a check up with her doctor when she got home. However Baljit died from an internal haemorrhage a few hours later as a result of her injury. Her husband now wishes to claim compensation for her death and also for his loss of income, as he will now have to spend more time at home looking after the children.
5) On another occasion there was a spillage of oil over part of the building site. Mick, a workman, slipped on the oil and broke his leg. Whacky had put up a warning notice, which Mick did not see but they had not tried to mop up the spillage. He wishes to bring compensation for this injury and for his time off from work.
Tort of Negligence:
The elements of negligence are duty of care; breach of that duty of care; causation, i.e. a causal link between the individual's injury or property damage; and actual damage either to a person or to property. Each of these elements are essential to a successful claim under the law of tort, however the first step is to consider whether there is a duty of care between the injured person and the person whose actions have caused it. There are two branches of duty of care, those duties recognised by law and those inferred by the circumstances. In cases where no duty of care has been imposed by law the test of the foreseeable claimant is used; whereby "the duty is not owed to the world at large (as a duty in criminal law would be), but only to an individual within the scope of the risk created, that is to the foreseeable victim".1 The cases that are essential to understanding this concept are Palsgraff v Long Island Railroad Co2, Hay or Bourhill v Young3; Caparo v Dickman4; Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire5; and Osman v UK6. These cases have formulated the modern understanding of duty of care, the Palsgraff Case set forth the notion that an individual should not be responsible for unforeseeable circumstances of their actions and in such cases a duty will not be enforced, i.e. if the individual that was injured is not in a foreseeable set of people that may be affected by the plaintiff