Breach of duty

Failure to meet the standard of care that the law requires. The standard is usually that of a reasonable person in the same situation. If a person does something a reasonable person would not do, or fails to do something a reasonable person would do, that is a breach. Example: a driver who does not stop at a clear red light may be in breach of duty.

Causation

The link between the breach and the harm suffered. Courts use the factual "but for" test (but for the defendant's actions the harm would not have happened) and then ask if the harm is too remote. Remoteness: whether the type of harm was a foreseeable result of the breach; unforeseeable, very unusual consequences can be ruled too remote.

Damages

Money awarded to the injured person to compensate for loss. Can include: Pecuniary: financial losses such as medical bills and lost earnings; Non-pecuniary: pain, suffering and loss of amenity. The claimant must normally try to reduce their losses where possible; this is called mitigation.

Joint liability

When two or more people are legally responsible for the same harm. Under joint and several liability a claimant may recover the full amount of damages from any one of the responsible parties, who can then seek contribution from the others. Example: two builders whose combined negligent actions cause the same injury may be jointly liable.

Negligence

The general legal cause of action where someone is at fault for harming another by carelessness. To succeed a claimant must prove: 1. Duty of care (the defendant owed a legal duty to the claimant); 2. Breach (the duty was broken); 3. Causation and damage (the breach caused actual loss or injury). Each term above is tested by the court using objective and practical standards.

Personal liability

Direct responsibility of the person who actually caused the harm by their own act or omission. Personal liability arises when the defendant's own negligence is proved. This contrasts with vicarious liability, where someone else (often an employer) may be held responsible for another person's actions.

Respondeat superior

A Latin phrase meaning "let the master answer". It describes the legal idea that an employer can be held liable for wrongs committed by an employee when those wrongs occur in the course of employment. Translation: let the master answer.

Vicarious liability

An outline of the rule: a person or organisation (typically an employer) can be held liable for torts committed by another person (typically an employee) if the tort was committed in the course of employment. Key points in outline: - There must usually be a relationship such as employer and employee. - The wrongful act must be connected to the employee's duties or the risks created by those duties. - Employers are not normally responsible for independent contractors in the same way. This entry is an outline only and does not cover all legal tests or exceptions.