Table of contentsFundamental principles of negligence and duty of careDuty of care in English law (the case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562 )Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964) Yuen Ku Yeu v Attorney General of Hong Kong (1988) AC 175Human rights law and the duty of careConclusionTort law is a branch of law generally classified as common law . The word tort itself refers to a wrong, especially a civil wrong, which indicates some specific breach of an obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff as defined by law. This breach of duty arises in tort law, in specific situations such as: medical malpractice, the malicious institution of legal proceedings, such as in the case of unlawful arrest and detention, car accidents and many other situations (Introduction to tort law). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Tort law itself is a broad subject that touches virtually every aspect of individual and personal rights, which are in fact protected by law. These rights and interests protected by tort law include, but are not limited to: personal safety or autonomy, individual property, respect for the law, financial interests, and individual reputation. It is appropriate for the reader to note that in tort law the emphasis is very clearly and ultimately focused on whether or not one party is obligated to indemnify another in tort matters ( Introduction to civil liability law). It is also equally important to note that, even so, an equally important factor is that the court also determines whether or not it is morally justifiable to impose civil liability on the defendant, and/or to hold him responsible for their conduct. This fundamental principle and understanding of tort law gives way to understanding the defendant's conduct with reference to the consequences for which he is responsible in tort. Although tort law is, as mentioned, a broad subject, we will nevertheless focus only on one of its most specific and controversial grounds (negligence). In tort, negligence would generally be defined as recklessness on the part of the defendant (Introduction to Tort Law). Indeed, the main objective of this article will be to highlight how human rights law influences the general understanding of tort law in relation to liability of care, but more importantly, how it has, over time, years, influenced and impacted English law, and it is inevitable, but desirable replication in Hong Kong. Fundamental principles of negligence and duty of careIt is common (but erroneous) that all tort liability should be based on, or be considered to arise from, negligence on the part of the defendant. Please note that negligence as a branch of tort law is in many circumstances associated with the conduct of defendants, and not necessarily their intent. For a civil court to determine that a defendant is liable in tort for negligence and/or duty of care, certain basic conditions must be established to support the defendants' tort claim.applicants. The court must therefore establish that the defendant is indeed bound by the plaintiff's duty of care, that a breach of this specifically mentioned duty of care has occurred on the part of the defendant, that there must indeed be some sort of damage for the plaintiff who is not too isolated in terms of proximity, and finally, that this said damage must result from the breach of an obligation on the part of the defendant (Introduction to negligence). The duty of care can arise on many occasions such as; when the courts establish that there is in fact reckless communication, direct or indirect, from the defendant to the plaintiff, or when a particular relationship between a third party and the defendant exposes the latter to liability. In the middle of the previous century, a landmark decision by Lord Atkins in 1932 resulted in an acclaimed (if controversial) principle, known as the neighbor principle. It was determined by Lord Atkins in Donoghue v Stevenson, that "you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you could reasonably foresee would be likely to harm your neighbor" (Introduction to the Law of tort liability). Although this particular principle has been contested in modern times as having no influence on the development of tort law, it has nonetheless been used on numerous occasions to resolve disputes between third parties, which do not not necessarily involve physical damage, but also economic damage resulting from the proximity of the defendant to the plaintiff, in the performance of such a service which could have a considerable effect on the plaintiff. Duty of care in English law (the case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562) Stanton (2012) mentions that the only reason duty of care is one of the most important torts in modern law is probably due to the subsequent success of Lord Atkins' landmark decision in Donoghue v Stevenson of 1932. Why? Stanton (2012) explains that this is because tort law is primarily based on negligence. In Donoghue the factors supporting a tort claim by the plaintiff by the defendant were clearly foreseen by Lord Atkins. In fact, it is important at this point to understand that, as previously stated in the introductory part of this present paper, the duty of care in negligence arising from a defendant's tort liability must adhere to all the fundamental principles encompassing negligence in general tort law. According to Atkins, the plaintiff had suffered damage as a result of the manufacturing and as such, the manufacture of said product was liable in tort to compensate the plaintiff (Introduction to tort law). The plaintiff's case was found to be consistent with the requirements and requirements of tort law and, as such, sufficiently credible to support tort liability on the part of the defendant. Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964) The case, according to Lord Reid, raised the question as to whether or not a claimant can recover damages arising from reliance on an innocent, but equally negligent, misrepresentation of information . Indeed, it was found that to the extent that the case raised certain specific questions of law, a duty of care was established on the part of the defendants (who were bankers) towards the plaintiffs (who in this case were agents advertising). It was held that the defendant had recklessly and negligently communicated with the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff had innocently reliedon this distorted communication, leading to economic damage. The underlying factor in this case was the reference to the Donoghue case in which Lord Reid explained that negligent acts should be distinguished from negligent words. Yuen Ku Yeu v Attorney General of Hong Kong (1988) AC 175 This case involved four resident investors. of Hon Kong and had made substantial investments in a depository company, which went into liquidation. Consequently, and as a result of this insolvency, the investors lost all their money and therefore sought damages for negligence on the part of the Commissioner for Oaths, who they claimed would have been able to advise the public accordingly. , on whether or not it was safe to deposit money with said company (Introduction to Negligence). The case follows and adheres to the general principles of tort law 1.e; it establishes whether or not the Commissioner for Oaths had any obligations to members of the Hong Kong public. Also in this case reference was made to Lord Atkins' neighbor principle, whereby it was found that there was no specific relationship between the Commissioner for Oaths and the investors or the company. Furthermore, the proximity of either party to the damage was also out of question.Luen Hing Fat Coating& Finishing Factory Ltd v Waan Chuen Ming (2011) HKCFA 4The factoryIn this case, the operator hired an independent contractor to repair a unit of his machine that had become non-operational. The independent contractor came with his employer, the plaintiff in this case. In order to repair the unit, the contractor and his employee used two pallet trucks provided by the plant operator for this purpose. While attempting to reinstall the unit, it fell on the employer, crushing both of his legs. As a result, the employer filed suit in favor of the independent contractor and the factory operator. It was held that the independent contractor owed a duty of care to the employer in providing a safe system of work, which in fact had been breached (Introduction to Negligence). In addition, the factory operator was also held liable in tort to the plaintiff for negligence and breach of statutory duties. Human Rights Law and Duty of Care There is no doubt that human rights, their processes and their applications, have evolved in recent years. have continued to influence the perception and due process of tort law (Stanton, 2012). It is probably important to place the definition of human rights in a context that fits the explanation provided here with reference to tort law. Rights such as civil rights and equality before the law, the right to education and employment are areas where tort law may be applicable, creating significant friction and conflict between tort law and human rights law. So, what exactly is the relationship between tort law and human rights law? A good explanation of this issue includes the fact that both systems of law strive to promote individual well-being. In tort law, and in particular the duty of care in negligence, the primary purpose of tort law is to prevent harm in the first place and, if that fails, to ensure that the harm resulting from 'such damage due to a breach of the obligations owed to a party.