Discuss the extent to which public servants owe a duty of care under the tort of negligence

IntroductionThe tort of inadvertence was established by the House of Lords in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]. In this case the claimant?s friend pellucid a bottle of zest beer for the claimant. The zest beer was contained in an aristocratical bottle. Having drunk some of the ginger beer, the claimant poured the reposeder into her glass. As she did so, the remain of a decomposed snail fell out. The claimant became ill and sued the manufacturer of the ginger beer. The House of Lords held that manufacturers owe a profession of care to the consumers of their products and that a consumer can sue a manufacturer if he or she is harmed or injured due to the manufacturer?s omission. In rewrite to make a successful claim below the tort of carelessness the claimant must therefore establish common chord things. Firstly, that the defendant owed the claimant a profession of care. Secondly, that the defendant breached the duty i.e. he or she was negligent Finally, the claiman t must establish that he or she suffered loss or harm as a work out of the disuse. An individual that has suffered harm as a consequence of the negligence of a public servant e.g. the police, the fire service, the ambulance service and so forth will not succeed under the tort of negligence unless the public servant owed the claimant a duty of care.

The purpose of this put on is to discuss the extent to which public servants owe a duty of care to members of the public. The Duty of CareIn Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] Lord Atkin explained that ?you must walk out reasonable care to avoid acts and omissions which you can slightly foreknow would be likely! to injure your neighbour? (Macintyre 2005 pg. 347). He be the term ?neighbour? as persons closely and directly touch on by your... If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper