Trusted by millions of Kenyans
LoginRegister
Study resources on Kenyaplex

Get ready-made curriculum aligned revision materials

Exam papers, notes, holiday assignments and topical questions – all aligned to the Kenyan curriculum.

Browse exam papers
Or go directly to:
Class notes Holiday assignments Topical questions Other resources

Explain the essential elements of negligence.

Explain the essential elements of negligence.

Answers

Maurice
In Blyth V. Birmingham Water Works Co. negligence was defined as “the omission to
be something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which
ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or doing something which a
prudent and reasonable man would not have done.”

In order to succeed in an action based on negligence the plaintiff must establish certain
elements. These are the essentials of negligence and are:
(i) Legal duty of care: the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed him a legal duty of `care
in the circumstances that is, the defendant knew or reasonably ought to have known that acting
negligently would injure the plaintiff. (Donoghue V. Stevenson).

(ii) The defendants degree of care depends on the transaction. Ordinarily, the degree
of care is that of a man of ordinary prudence. In the case of professionals it is
that of a reasonably competent professional in the field. However, in certain
circumstances the defendant owes the plaintiff no legal duty of care. As was the
case in King V. Phillips. These are circumstances in which the defendant could
not reasonably have foreseen the plaintiff suffering any damage.

(iii) Breach of duty: the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant broke his duty of care
that is, did not act in a manner consistent with a reasonable man. It must be evident that the
defendants conduct amounted to a negligent act or omission. The plaintiff must adduce
evidence to that effect. However, in certain instances negligence is presumed. These
situations are referred to as res ipsa loquitar which literally means it speaks for itself. It
means that the occurrence cannot be explained in a manner inconsistent with the defendants
negligence. As was the case in Scott V. London and St. Catherines Dock Co. In such a case,
it is for the defendant to demonstrate the occurrence without his negligence.

(iv) Loss or damage: the plaintiff must establish that as a result of the defendants breach of duty he
suffered loss or damage. These must be anexus between the plaintiff's loss and the defendants breach of duty failing which damages are said to be too remote and
irrecoverable. The Wagon Mound II the defendant is generally liable for such loss or
damage as is reasonably foreseable as was the case in Bradford V. Robinson Rentals Ltd.
maurice.mutuku answered the question on April 30, 2018 at 06:08

Answer Attachments

Next: State the rule in Rylands -vs- Fletcher and explain the exceptions to that rule.

Previous: Hassan Payuka is the proprietor of Parrot Daily Newspaper which published an article two weeks ago to the effect that Mrs. Rose Brown the managing director...

View more CPA Commercial Law Questions and Answers  |  Return to Questions Index

Exams With Marking Schemes

Related Questions