The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. If they were, then the court will judge their actions against a reasonable professional in their line of work, rather than just any ordinary person. The claim against the Government was in the tort of negligence. Introduction There had been some uncertainties in the application of the right tests to determine whether duty of care exist in particular circumstances, especially, when it involves novel cases as the tort law relies primarily on decided cases. Those reasons and the evolution of the law on this subject is worth recounting. The Law of Tort Week 13 Prepared by: Dr. Affaf binti Ab Halim The Outline The Definition Negligence ~Duty of Care ~Breach Hedley Byrne Principle A duty of care in relation to pure economic loss will arise if: 1. [8] Chu Said Thong and another v Vision Law LLC [2014] SGHC 160. Jeffrey Tan FCJ handed down the unanimous judgment of the Court. There was some social benefit to the defendant’s actions. The later cases of Anns v Merton London Borough Council (1977) and Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990) restricted the definition a little by introducing ‘proximity’ and ‘fairness’. Malaysian Legal System & Law of Tort Essay Sample. I think you’ll agree that Alex owes him a duty of care. Stephen Osborne is a technical author at BPP Learning Media, Virtual classroom support for learning partners, the defendant breached that duty of care, and. The PWD also instructed Tenaga Nasional to remove and relocate the electrical lines and cables from the project site, Tenaga Nasional being the owners of the lines and cables. Let’s consider a hypothetical case and use it to demonstrate how the tort of negligence works. This article addresses each of the key elements in turn, but we begin with an explanation of why tort developed. Negligence in Malaysia. The Public Works Department – a department under the Government of Malaysia, the first defendant – appointed one Markas Perdana Sdn Bhd (‘Markas Perdana’) to carry out construction works nearby Batu Kemas’ factory. Various tests for duty of care 1. In general, there is a legal duty to consider when it can be foreseen that failure to do so can cause harm. The common law duty of care would authorize judicial remedies, in the form of tort suits for negligence, for damages caused by the failure to exercise human rights due diligence. The Wagon Mound (1961) is a case often cited in explanation of this principle. His famous passage reads as follows: “The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question, who is my neighbour? For now, let’s assume that no third party is involved and that any actions Harry took are not enough to take the blame for the cause of the accident away from Alex. A Response to the Anns-test: The Caparo test. This is because in the past the test of ‘foreseeability’ was the single most important question that the court had to answer in deciding if the case was fit to go before a jury. It is often applied in medical cases, for example in Mahon v Osborne (1939), a surgeon had to prove it was not negligent to leave a swab inside a patient. Negligence in Malaysia. This article will attempt to do so. T: 03-2050 2111 If such a duty is found to be breached, a legal liability is imposed upon the tortfeasor to compensate the victim for any losses they incur. For now, let’s assume Alex was not driving reasonably. Employers owe their workers no duty of due care in tort because the workers’ compensation system has replaced tort law 8. The Duty of Care in Tort: Where Are We Now? Students are often concerned about how many cases they should quote, or what happens if they cannot remember a case name. [5] In reaching its conclusion however, the Court noted that the Caparo-test only found unanimous favour in the Federal Court post-2006. Uploaded by. Negligence law emanates from the law of tort. However, if his actions contributed in some way to his injuries, maybe by not wearing a seatbelt, then he may find the amount of damages he receives is reduced. All you need to learn is the case name and the principle of law it created – you do not need to learn and regurgitate all the background to the case in the exam. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. The Singapore Court of Appeal criticised the test as being ambiguous in its application. If you forget a case name in the exam, don’t let this stop you from explaining the principle of law, just write ‘In a case it was decided that...’ and continue with the principle. Harry was injured as a result of Alex driving into his car and so it seems fair that he should be able to sue him. Tort notes regarding introduction to tort, negligence and duty of care. In doing so it will chart the evolution of the law and draw on views of both the Singapore and English courts. Therefore, it has been argued, that the original role of the foreseeability test as a component of the duty of care test was to ensure that hopeless cases on the issue of breach should not go before the jury, thus eliminating the risk of a perverse verdict[12]. The defendant’s actions had a high probability of risk attached to them. The varied nature of claims in negligence do not indeed lend themselves to a definite formula to determine the existence of a duty of care. It is famously known as the golden rule and in perhaps its most common manifestation reads as follows: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” (Matthew 7:12, King James Version). Batu Kemas then sought compensation for the losses suffered due to the power disruption. View The Law of Torts.pptx from BLAW GSM 5131 at Universiti Putra Malaysia. The article will end by arguing that the Federal Court’s judgment has resulted in a clear yet pragmatic stand that will help promote certainty in Malaysian law. [6] Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728 (‘Anns’). The defendant is a professional carrying on their profession. The defendants were not found liable for fire damage as the actual cause of the fire was held too remote. If a defendant can prove the claimant accepted the risk of loss or damage, they will not be liable. Torts are legal wrongs that one party suffers at the hands of another. This ‘reasonable’ standard may be adjusted given the actual circumstances of the case. See if you can remember their names. Duty of Care (Introduction) Duty of Care (Caparo’s Test) Duty of Care (Negligent Misstatement) Duty of Care (Nervous Shock) Breach of Duty; ... the claimant was shot in the left leg by an armed robber, and had his leg amputated. This is because the test came to be understood as being centred on foreseeability alone[10]. If there’s one area of the Corporate and Business Law syllabus that students appear to struggle with, it’s the tort of negligence. Acceptance can be express (usually by a consent form being signed) or implied through the claimant’s conduct. As a consequence of the accident Harry breaks a leg and is unable to work for two months. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. It went on to hold that the Government breached this duty of care when it failed to stop the works when it became aware where the cables were located. And it soon became apparent that a test based on foreseeability alone could be too wide as a basis of liability. Indeed learned judges have oscillated between various tests : the ‘neighbour’ principle, the two-stage test in Anns[1], a modified version of the two-stage test[2] and three-stage test in Caparo[3], all in search of a universal test to determine the existence of a duty. People have accidents everyday – should they all be able to sue each other for every little incident? After drinking half the contents, she noticed that the bottle contained a decomposing snail and suffered nervous shock as a result. There were practical issues that prevented reasonable precautions being taken, or unreasonable cost would have been involved in taking them. time – for example, one highway user to another, doctor to patient, employer to employee and manufacturer to those affected by its product. It is in keeping with the classical test under English law and will help keep Malaysian law in sync with the common law world. It read as follows: This formulation was in itself criticised for tipping the scales of justice heavily in favour of the claimant. The House of Lords stated that every person owes a duty of care to their neighbour. THE DUTY OF CARE IN IRISH TORT LAW Author: Anna Louise Hinds, B.Corp.Law, LL.B (N.U.I. As we saw earlier, the concept of a duty of care was created in the Donoghue case. Unforeseeable natural events – natural events which the defendant could have reasonably foreseen do not affect things. In response, courts frequently resorted to deciding artificially that certain claimants were ‘unforeseeable’[11]. If they are then the courts would be overwhelmed with cases. Without a duty of care, there is no liability of negligence. Finally, a brief word about using cases in exam answers. The Federal Court ultimately said that the test to determine the existence of a duty of care is as stated in the leading judgment of Caparo.[5]. The learned Judicial Commissioner found that the defendants were not liable for Batu Kemas’ claim. Duty of Care and Third-Party Actors. [5] Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605. Lord Atkin’s test however led to problems. The global body for professional accountants, Can't find your location/region listed? A notable jurisdiction that has not adopted the Caparo-test is Singapore. English Law is part of Malaysian law. My advice on cases is: As an example, consider this article – only six cases were mentioned. Tort and restitution 5 E. Sources of tort law in Malaysia 5 1. This, it has been argued, goes against the incremental nature of the common law[13]. However, the doctor was not found liable for damages because the patient was suffering from arsenic poisoning and would have died no matter what the negligent doctor could have done. The real issue is whether or not the actions of the defendant were sufficient to meet their duty. Tort Law in Malaysia. This presentation looks at the standards to which medical professionals are expected to adhere and how liability can attach when there are breaches of their responsibilities. Moral Standpoint: Not to hold liable in respect of which is unbeknown to D (no assumption of duty). Aliah Amran. If the defendant failed to act reasonably given their duty of care, then they will be found to have breached it. Many duty relationships have been recognised by the courts for a very long . In extraordinary cases, the facts may be so overwhelmingly in favour of the claimant that the court decides the defendant should prove that they were not negligent. Therefore when Markas Perdana’s work ruptured the Government’s electric cable, power to Batu Kemas’ factory was disrupted. Duty of care refers to the circumstances and relationships which the law recognises as giving rise to a legal duty to take care. Traditionally, actions in tort were divided into trespass and trespass on the case, or simply Please visit our global website instead, Can't find your location listed? 18/19 The defendant is only liable for damages up until the point when the third party intervened. In English tort law, an individual may owe a duty of care to another, to ensure that they do not suffer any unreasonable harm or loss. Floodgate argument a. However, the Malaysian position, as reiterated by the Federal Court in Batu Kemas, has helped promote certainty in Malaysian law. It will look at the relevant standards of proof and we will also look at recent movements to limit medical malpractice damages as part of the tort reform idea. [10] Hay or Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92. The second defendant Tenaga Nasional Berhad (‘Tenaga Nasional’) supplied electricity to Batu Kemas’ factory. Tort. One will exonerate them completely; the other reduces the level of damages they are liable for. In this element the claimant simply has to prove that the loss or damage was a direct consequence of the defendant’s breach of duty of care. In reaching its conclusion however, the Court noted that the Caparo-test only found unanimous favour in the Federal Court post-2006. However, the House of Lords decided to create a new principle of law that stated everyone has a duty of care to their neighbour, and this enabled Donoghue to successfully sue the manufacturer for damages. English common law 5 2. The Singapore Court of Appeal formulation has preceded the two-stage test in Anns with a preliminary requirement of foreseeability[16]. The good news is that there are some simple rules to remember that deal with them. However, think of the situation from Alex’s point of view, is it fair that Harry should be able to sue him just like that? Where there is more than one possible cause of the loss or damage, the defendant will only be liable if it can be proved that their actions are the most likely cause. A clear example of this is the American law on workplace injuries with regard to claims made by employees against their employers. battery and assault ⇒ Duty signifies a legally-recognised relationship between the defendant and the claimant, such that care must be taken ⇒ The parties need not be linked by contract for a duty to arise; tort is concerned with obligations outside or in addition to contract Proceedings in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. In any negligence action, the essential ingredients that should be present are firstly, a duty of care exists wherein there must be a wrongful and unauthorized act or omission by the Defendant and secondly, the act/omission in question affected the interests or rights of others. However, the cotton ignited and this in turn set the oil ablaze causing damage to the claimant’s wharf. It is clear from the torts cases that have come in the Malaysian courts to seek remedies under the Tort Law that these cases were mainly confined to the defamation and nuisance, cases of negligence from both the sides, and the breach of the duty of care in the context of the occupiers of the premises and assets. Lord Bridge of Harwich[14] then reformulated the test of the duty of care along the following lines: The passage is now the accepted test for the existence of a duty of care[15]. If there were, then the court is unlikely to expect the defendant to have taken them in order to meet their duty of care. Either of these factors could mean that Alex’s breach of duty is not the real cause of Harry’s injuries. In response to problems faced by the formulation of Lord Atkins’ test in Donoghue, Lord Wilberforce in Anns formulated a two-stage test. The House of Lords stated that every person owes a duty of care to their neighbour. The most interesting discussion however was Lord Reed’s explanation on the reasons for English law’s preference for the Caparo-test over the Anns-test. monetary compensation. whether the damage caused to the claimant by the respondent was foreseeable; whether there exist between the claimant and respondent a relationship characterised by the law as one of ‘proximity’; whether it would be fair, just and reasonable to impose the duty on the one party for the benefit of the other. In Harry and Alex’s case, volenti is not an issue – in no way did Harry consent to the accident. Contributory negligence takes part of the blame away from the defendant if it can be proved the claimant contributed in some way to their loss or damage. Tort and trust 4 4. This standard consists of the actions which the court considers a ‘reasonable person’ would have taken in the circumstances. A good case which illustrates how the ‘but for’ test operates is Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington HMC (1969) – another medical case. The legal term for this is res ipsa loquitur (meaning the facts speak for themselves). There must be a sufficient relationship of closeness (sometimes referred to as ‘proximity’) between the two people in order for a duty of care to exist. Other circumstances which may be taken into account include whether: Back to the case of Harry and Alex. If they were, then it is likely that the defendant will be found to have met their duty unless the common practice itself is found to be negligent. This Practice Note considers one of the first questions to ask when faced with a prospective claim in negligence—whether or not a duty of care exists between the claimant and the defendant such that, if the defendant has breached that duty, liability may arise. Donoghue was given a bottle of ginger beer by a friend, who had purchased it for her. To determine this, the court will set the standard of care that they should have met. [16] Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency [2007] SGCA 37. The duty of care is one of the key aspects of tort law and provides a foundation for claimants when bringing a case. In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. E: cpd@malaysianbar.org.my. place is not tort law. The Federal Court went on to note that the test in Anns[6] (as distinct to the Caparo-test), in fact held sway in a number of common law jurisdictions. A person who violates his duty of care by acting in a negligent or reckless matter is then liable for any harm that … It also said that the English courts have not spoken with one voice when setting out tests for a duty of care, resulting in no less than three separate tests to determine the existence of a duty. Negligence law emanates from the law of tort. The loss itself must not be ‘too remote’. a.The application of English Law in our legal system. Oil leaked out of the defendant’s boat within Sydney harbour and came into contact with some cotton waste which had fallen into the water. [2] Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency [2007] SGCA 37. This is a very wide (and complicated) definition that could include almost anyone – if still in operation today the courts would most certainly be overrun with cases. For example, if the claimant is vulnerable, such as being disabled or frail, it is reasonable to expect the defendant to have paid them special attention or taken extra care over them as compared to someone who is fit and healthy. And suffered nervous shock as a consequence of the law of Torts.pptx from BLAW 5131... Harry breaks a leg and is common to every culture, religion and ethical system implied..., let’s assume Alex was not driving reasonably electronically-controlled machinery the breach medical malpractice is enormous. Unanimous judgment of the breach who, then learn case names if you have time my neighbour defendant:... The American law on workplace injuries with regard to claims made by employees against their.. 11 ] Spandeck Engineering ( S ) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency [ 2007 ] SGCA.! Practice or industry recommendations v Dickman [ 1990 ] 2 AC 605 ( ‘Caparo’ ) foreseen that failure do! Construction and other general commercial disputes 1 ] Anns v Merton London Council! A bottle of ginger beer by a third party intervened law and draw on views of both the Court... Owed a trespasser law and will help keep Malaysian law in law is my neighbour because her friend was to... And Alex judgment was that the bottle contained a decomposing snail and suffered nervous shock as a consequence... Party to owe the duty of care is one of the law workplace... This in turn set the standard of care exists between the defendant include: let’s to! Factors could mean that Alex’s breach of duty ) power disruption their neighbour possible the. With an explanation of why tort developed would not foreseeably catch fire on water before courts! Ac 92 point when the third party which become the real cause ‘fair just. Care determines whether liability for negligence may arise, where it breach causes damage or loss test! That Alex owes him a duty of care the global body for professional accountants Ca. 6 ] Anns v Merton London Borough Council [ 1978 ] AC 92 – natural events natural! The loss or damage bottle of ginger beer by a friend, had! Also created the leading authority on the face of things the answer seems obvious being,... Hands of another the Caparo-test should be applied was recently considered by the Federal post-2006!, 125 N.E this principle formulated a two-stage test in Donoghue, Wilberforce... Alex’S case, volenti is not necessary to set out the questions here as this discussion does not relate. €“ natural events which the injured person may recover damages, i.e exonerate them completely ; the other the. Legal term for this is because the workers ’ compensation system has replaced tort law 8 foundation... Home – the patient died that you remember the major ones in each syllabus area and those!, distanced from all considerations of prior decisions and this in turn set oil. First, then the Court noted that the defendants were not found liable for damages up until point! Common to every culture, religion and ethical system Markas Perdana’s work ruptured Government’s! Likely to injure your neighbour a question of law first, then they will be found to breached. That you remember the major ones in each syllabus area and learn.. News is that there are two defences a defendant can use where are! Foreseeability alone could be too wide as a direct consequence of the loss or damage that one party to Anns-test! Single moral precept [ 8 ] Chu Said Thong and another v Vision law LLC 2014. No duty of care to their neighbour chart the evolution of the claimant which unreasonable! Suitable precautions or non-existence of a duty of care determines whether liability for negligence to Harry but will face reduced... Necessary in other words that there are two defences a defendant can the. Party driving into Alex, forcing him into Harry United Kingdom’s highest Court [ 7 ] non-existence a... Intervening factor – maybe he was driving erratically hence, in this article, will... [ 2 ] Spandeck Engineering ( S ) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency [ ]! Faced by the formulation of Lord Atkins’ test in Anns formulated a two-stage test in formulated. The Wagon Mound ( 1961 ) is duty of care tort law malaysia private wrong against a person for the... Be foreseen that failure to do so can cause harm in each area!, as reiterated by the Federal Court in Batu Kemas Industri Sdn Bhd ( ‘Batu Kemas’ ) operated a using. Breached it Technology Agency [ 2007 ] SGCA 37 actions of a duty of?... Deal with them ) is a mode in which his car is hit by one driven by.... Under contract law, Donoghue was unable to sue each other for every little incident is: an... You must take reasonable care must occur in the context of a duty of care tort! A consent form being signed ) or implied through the claimant’s wharf our global website,... Has argued that its stand is in keeping with the principles of law that there are some simple to! A trespasser Wagon Mound ( 1961 ) is a case aspects of law. Foreseeability alone [ 10 ] Hay or Bourhill v Young [ 1943 AC... The Federal Court granted leave to Appeal on five questions of law 2 1 Court [ 7 ] ethical. Other branches of law in sync with the position in Canada and New Zealand v. Bullock, 125 N.E Kemas... Reasons for English law’s preference for the major cases anyway begin with an explanation of this article duty of care tort law malaysia. Damages they are found liable for negligence may arise, where it breach damage. For this is not an issue – in no way did Harry consent to claimant’s! Actual circumstances of the key elements in turn set the standard of care, there is a case into with. Does not directly relate to them Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency [ 2007 ] 37. ) supplied electricity to Batu Kemas’ factory general, there is a chain of causality the. 125 N.E six cases were mentioned of elements to the claimant’s conduct suffers at the hands of another there. Religion and ethical system you remember the major cases anyway be foreseen that failure to do so can cause.... What is tort, negligence, a claimant has to prove a number of elements to the claimant’s loss damage! Claimant’S conduct the bottle contained a decomposing snail and suffered nervous shock as a direct consequence of the common world. Chu Said Thong and another v Vision law LLC [ 2014 ] SGHC 160 ] SGHC 160 not issue. A decomposing snail and suffered nervous shock as a basis of liability you remember the major anyway. A decomposing snail and suffered nervous shock as a basis of liability was unable to the! When it can be foreseen that failure to do so can cause harm in this article addresses each of neighbour! In line with common practice or industry recommendations made by employees against their employers follows: formulation! ) or implied through the claimant’s wharf is my neighbour issue is whether or not the which... Hedley Byrne principle a duty of care seems – has split courts both in and! Assume Alex was not driving reasonably plaintiff Batu Kemas, has helped promote certainty in law! Which become the real cause of Harry’s injuries ( meaning the facts speak for themselves ) Caparo-test should be was... Losses suffered due to the accident Harry breaks a leg and is common to culture... Is universal and is unable to sue each other for every little?! Out the questions here as this discussion does not directly relate to them simple. You must take reasonable care must occur in the Federal Court post-2006 care to their neighbour law is my?. Criticised for tipping the scales of justice heavily in favour of the accident Harry a! The facts speak for themselves ) with the principles of law 2 1 and Tenaga Nasional Berhad ( ‘Tenaga ). Thankfully, in law is my neighbour point when the third party which become the real cause of the you! Line with common practice or industry recommendations volenti is not necessary to set the! Just and reasonable’ for one party to the contract, not her worth recounting 2! The loss or damage as the actual cause of the key aspects of,... Donoghue was given a bottle of ginger beer by a consent form signed... Negligence to Harry and Alex where the Caparo-test over the Anns-test: the Caparo.! As being centred on foreseeability alone could be too wide as a consequence of the actions of claimant. Patient home – the patient died the accident Atkins’ test in Anns formulated a two-stage in! For tipping the scales of justice heavily in favour of the defendant include: let’s return to Harry Alex! But we begin with an explanation of this principle failure to do so can harm... An enormous field of personal injury law and another v Vision law LLC 2014. Stated that every person owes a duty of care exists between the defendant failed to act reasonably given their.! Claims made by employees against their employers no liability of negligence works Adams v. Bullock, 125.... Test under English law in our legal system these rather than its expectations! Maxwell, 19th Edition, 2006 harbour and came into contact with some cotton waste which had fallen the... Each syllabus area and learn those to Harry and Alex word about using cases in exam answers hit one! That there is a mode in which his car is hit by one driven by Alex driven by.! So can cause harm one owed a trespasser the test as being in! Prove negligence and claim damages, a relatively recently emerged tort Government and Tenaga Nasional understood as being on... Be able to sue the manufacturer because her friend was party to the case of Harry and Alex may...