Tort of Negligence Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Tort of Negligence - Essay ExamplePer say the concept of failure doe not refer to an act. Actually it is a legal concept that tends to define the basic piece of an act so as to prove it to be legally wrong. As per Blyth vs. Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856), Negligence is the default to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. However, once the concept of negligence came within the scope of the slope Tort Law, the next logical and plausible challenge was to decide as to what qualifies to be termed as nondescript care and what was to be the nature and basis of the measure required to decide as to whether an act attached by an individual, organization or a group amounted to negligence. In that context, integrity needs to mention the such(prenominal) famous concept of the man on the Clapham Omnibus. ... The man on the C lapham Omnibus represented a hypothetical person who is in general reasonable and well educated without being qualified exuberant to be called a specialist (Twining 64). The man on the Clapham Omnibus represented the standard of reasoning with which to tidal bore a defendants conduct in an English Law Civil Action for Negligence. The earmark of this concept was that it delineated and put in place a standard for ascertaining and establishing the charges of negligence on a defendant. It established a general standard of care extended of any English citizen while playacting varied aspects of ones personal or professional life. The real beauty of this standard is that it tends to be reasonable yet simple in its approach and tends to bring the legal concept of negligence within the grasp and scope of the so called common man. The very accompaniment that this standard of care does not expect perfection on the part of ascertainers obliterates any possibility on the part of the defend ants to wriggle out of the cargo area of law by resorting to technical jargon and rigmarole. It is also immensely humane and pragmatic in the hotshot that it do recognizes the fact that an average person lacks the foresight to foresee any risk accruing by the dint of ones actions. Still, it is astutely responsible and practical in the sense that it enjoins on the average person the vocation to be ordinarily prudent and careful, without tending to be unexceptionally or unrealistically flawless. There is no denying the fact that even the most virtuoso experts in jurisprudence do tend to overlook and appreciate the sophism and beauty inherent in the concept of the man on the Clapham Omnibus. However, the reality is that this legal patois not only validated the concept