Keith Patten applauds a holistic approach to negligence liability
It is traditional to regard the tort of negligence as being made up of a number of component parts, a decision procedure in relation to the elements which must be satisfied to establish liability. It is not, therefore, surprising that this “checklist” approach to negligence is often found in the decisions of the courts. But competing with it is a more holistic view of negligence law, which concentrates less on bolting together its individual parts and more on the aims and purposes which negligence law is seeking to achieve.
Both of these approaches can be seen to be at play in the recent Court of Appeal decision in Hadlow v Peterborough City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1329, [2011] All ER (D) 193 (Oct) a case which can, according to taste, be viewed as a doctrinal decision on the sometimes obscure doctrine of remoteness, or as a decision based on a view of negligence law’s underlying purposes.
The facts
The facts are relatively straightforward. The claimant was a 63-year-old woman employed by the defendant
