LAW OF TORT Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3500 words

LAW OF TORT - Essay Example Failure to protect others from harm as a result of somebody’s conduct is known as negligence whereby a duty care will have been ignored. Against this background, this section of the essay seeks to critically assess the standard care owed by professionals compared to the normal test. From the above definition of tort, it is clear that everyone has a duty care to make sure that their actions do not harm their neighbours. However, with regards to this normal test, it does not always follow that duty care is owed by the third party which may result in loss of something which requires the plaintiff to prove that the resultant loss has been a result of the action of the third party. This emanates from the assertion that every individual has duty care to the neighbour. Thus, negligence in common cases ought to be proved by the plaintiff that he or she has been injured or suffered losses as a result of the conduct of the third party. In this case, the relationship between the parties involved may not be very distinct, the reason why the plaintiff has to prove that he has suffered for him to claim for damages from that resultant injury which would be unprecedented. Tort of negligence in this particular scenario will involve third parties which may not be directly related. Contrary to the normal test of tort, the standard of care owed by professionals is a bit clear and distinct. With regards to professionals, the duty of care owed to the other people is clearly distinct in most cases. For instance, at the workplace, it is the duty of the manager or the supervisor to ensure that the employees are conducting themselves in a way that will not cause harm to them. It is mainly believed that when workers are at work within the company promises, they are under the custody of the employer hence anything bad that may happen to them will be owed to the employer. In such a scenario, it is the duty of the employer to ensure that the day of duty care vested in him is not brea ched since this will warrantee some form of compensation. In the same vein, the day of duty care for children at school is owed to the teacher because he is the one with direct responsibility with the conduct of the kids. In other words, they are under the custody of the teacher so the standard care in this case is the responsibility of the teacher. The teacher will have been entrusted to take good care of the children so it is his duty to fulfil this trust vested in him. In some cases, a medical practitioner like a dentist or surgeon has a duty of care to his patients. In the event that he breaches that duty which may result in injury, shock or even financial loss falls under the tort of negligence and the professional involved will be liable for paying compensation. It is the duty of the medical practitioner to ensure that he does not cause further harm to the patient who has vested her trust in him knowing that he will be able to assist him. For example, Lord McMillan in Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92 (HL) suggests that the crude view that law should only take account of physical injury has been discarded and it now takes into consideration injury by shock. So in the event that a patient has been traumatised in the custody of a physician, he or she will be liable to sue for damages and ultimately compensation. It is only professional acts that are caught by the assumption of responsibility