NCA Torts key terms

The legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm to another person. It is the first element a claimant must establish in a negligence action before breach, causation and damage are considered.

The rule that a person owes care to those closely and directly affected by their conduct, whom they should reasonably foresee might be injured by their acts or omissions.

A three-part framework asking whether harm was reasonably foreseeable, whether the parties were sufficiently proximate, and whether imposing a duty is fair, just and reasonable in the circumstances.

The closeness of relationship between claimant and defendant, in time, space or legal connection, such that it is appropriate to treat the defendant as owing care to that claimant.

The threshold that harm of the general kind suffered must have been foreseeable by a reasonable person at the time of the alleged negligence, without requiring foresight of the precise manner or extent.

The objective benchmark for breach of duty: what a hypothetical ordinary, prudent person would have done in the defendant's position, ignoring the defendant's own idiosyncrasies.

Failure to meet the standard of care required in the circumstances, judged by comparing the defendant's conduct with that of a reasonable person and weighing risk, cost and social utility.

An economic test of negligence comparing the burden of taking precautions against the probability of harm multiplied by the gravity of the loss if it occurs.

The measure of care applied to skilled defendants, requiring the ordinary skill of a competent practitioner in that field, not the highest possible standard.

A professional is not negligent if they acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of practitioners in that field, even if other practitioners disagree.

A patient's agreement to treatment given after adequate disclosure of material risks and alternatives, so that the decision reflects what a reasonable person in the patient's position would want to know.

A rule allowing negligence to be inferred where the thing causing harm was under the defendant's exclusive control and the accident would not ordinarily happen without negligence.

The obligation on the claimant in a civil negligence case to prove the elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities, meaning more likely than not.

Proof that the defendant's breach was a necessary condition of the harm, usually established by the but-for test asking whether the harm would have occurred without the breach.

A method of factual causation asking whether, on the balance of probabilities, the claimant's injury would have happened even if the defendant had not been negligent.

A test allowing causation where multiple causes contributed to indivisible harm and the defendant's breach made a more than negligible contribution to the outcome.

The policy-based limit on liability requiring the breach to be a sufficiently direct and operative cause of the harm, distinct from mere factual connection.

The restriction that a defendant is liable only for consequences of a foreseeable kind, even if the extent or severity of the harm was greater than anticipated.

The principle that a defendant must take the victim as they find them, so full liability follows even where an unusual pre-existing condition made the injury far worse than expected.

A new, independent act of a third party or the claimant that breaks the chain of causation and relieves the original wrongdoer of liability for later harm.

A claimant's own failure to take reasonable care for their safety, which reduces the damages recoverable in proportion to their share of responsibility rather than defeating the claim entirely.

A complete defence where the claimant freely and knowingly consented to the risk of harm, accepting it voluntarily rather than merely being aware of it.

A defence barring or reducing recovery where the claimant's own criminal conduct is an essential part of the circumstances giving rise to the harm.

Liability for careless words causing loss, arising where a special relationship exists, the statement was reasonably relied upon, and the maker assumed responsibility for its accuracy.

The rule that a duty of care can arise for careless statements made in a professional or advisory context where the maker knows the recipient will rely on them.

The closeness between adviser and advisee, often marked by skill, knowledge, reliance and an assumption of responsibility, that grounds a duty for statements causing economic loss.

Financial loss unconnected to physical injury or damage to property, which is generally not recoverable in negligence absent a special relationship or assumption of responsibility.

The duty of a person occupying or controlling premises to take reasonable care for the safety of visitors and, in limited circumstances, non-visitors such as trespassers.

Any fixed or movable structure, including land, buildings, vessels, vehicles and lifts, to which the occupier's duty of care for safety extends.

A person who enters premises without permission or exceeds the permission given, to whom an occupier owes a limited duty regarding foreseeable injury from known dangers.

Strict responsibility of an employer or principal for wrongful acts committed by an employee or agent acting in the course of their employment or role.

The personal and non-delegable duty of an employer to provide competent staff, safe premises, proper equipment and a safe system of work for employees.

The scope of activities an employee is engaged to perform, used to decide whether an employer is vicariously liable for the employee's wrongful act.

Intentional application of unlawful force to another person without consent, requiring only intent to make contact rather than intent to cause harm.

An intentional act causing another to reasonably apprehend immediate unlawful force, without any physical contact being necessary.

Intentional complete restriction of a person's freedom of movement without lawful justification, where the confined person knows of the confinement or suffers harm from it.

Liability imposed without proof of fault or negligence, arising from the nature of the activity or relationship, subject only to limited defences.

A landowner who brings onto land something likely to do mischief if it escapes is strictly liable for foreseeable damage caused by its escape from a non-natural use.

Unlawful and unreasonable interference with another person's use or enjoyment of land, or with rights over land, judged by the character of the locality and the harm caused.

Substantial and unreasonable interference with a landowner's or occupier's use and enjoyment of their land, actionable by those with a proprietary interest in the affected land.

An unlawful act or omission endangering the comfort, safety or convenience of a class of the public, actionable by the state or by individuals who suffer special damage beyond the general harm.

The relief a court grants to a successful claimant, principally damages to compensate loss and injunctions to restrain continuing or threatened wrongs.

A monetary award intended to put the claimant, so far as money can, in the position they would have occupied had the tort not been committed.

A court order requiring a party to stop doing something, or occasionally to do something, granted where damages would be an inadequate remedy for a continuing wrong.