Tort Tutorial
Tort Tutorial
Tort Tutorial
their negligence in failing to make sure that the food are clean. If yes, how would he claim for
the negligence.
First of all, JJ need to prove that Alama Café owed him duty of care. According to the case of
Caparo v Dickman (1990). These factors are the damage is reasonably foreseeable, close and
direct relationship of proximity between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the
circumstances as a whole must be such that it is fair, just and reasonable for the imposition of
a duty of care.
It was held in this case that no duty of care was owed. There was not sufficient proximity
between Caparo and the auditors since the auditors were not aware of the existence of Caparo
nor the purpose for which the accounts were being used by them.
In comparison, in JJ situation, the damage is forseeable. The risk of customers getting food
poison or diarrhea if the food was not clean. Besides that, there are also proximity between
JJ, as the customer and the café staff. It is also fair, just and reasonable to impose the duty of
After establishing that the café owe duty to him, JJ need to prove that the café had breach the
duty of care. The suitable test in this situation is the reasonable man test. The question that
would be asked in this test is ‘would a reasonable man have acted as the Defendant has done
if the reasonable man was faced with the same circumstance as the defendant? If the answer
This can be seen in the case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1865). According to this
case, negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do or doing
something which a reasonable man would not do. It was held that the company were not
liable since the accident arose from a frost of extraordinary severity, the effects of which the
company would not foresee or be expected to guard against, and consequently, there was no