Proving negligence or breach of statutory duty

This Overview provides a summary of the main principles that govern liability in most personal injury claims. Detailed guidance on the legal issues for specific types of personal injury claim can be found on the Topics page of the PI & Clinical Negligence practical guidance homepage under the ‘Types of claim’ heading.

Liability can also arise other than from negligence or breach of statutory duty. For example, a claim may arise from a deliberate assault or a claim may need to be pursued through a scheme such as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.

Duty of care in personal injury claims

For a claimant to succeed in proving their personal injury claim in common law negligence, they must first prove that a duty of care was owed by the defendant. When assessing whether a duty of care exists the court will consider whether there is an established precedent for the relationship between the parties, eg as between motorists and other road users. The court will then follow these precedents unless it is necessary to consider whether they should be departed from.

If a practitioner is faced

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Actions for unlawful police detention and QOCS protection in mixed claims (ALK and another v The Chief Constable of Surrey Police)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In an appeal heard by Mr Justice Bourne, the High Court held that the arrests of a married couple, both of whom were serving Metropolitan Police officers, by Surrey Police were unlawful. The court found that the arresting officers had not given appropriate consideration to voluntary attendance for interview as a less intrusive alternative under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) and Code G. The court stressed that the ‘necessity’ limb in PACE 1984, s 24 is an important constitutional safeguard, following a line of authority that stresses strict adherence to PACE 1984—an officer who gives no real consideration to alternatives runs the ‘plain risk’ of being found to have had no reasonable grounds to believe arrest was necessary. The court therefore allowed the liability appeal. This decision is an important reaffirmation of the strict operational limits on arrest powers. On costs, the court provided useful guidance as to the starting point in mixed personal injury claims, confirming that properly supported PI claims should attract QOCS protection. Bourne J concluded that the claimants’ pleaded and evidenced psychiatric injury claims meant the proceedings could properly be regarded as a personal injury action ‘in the round’ for QOCS purposes, and that the trial judge’s enforcement order permitting 70% of the defendant’s costs should not have been made, under the mixed-claim discretion in CPR 44.16. Written by Connor Wright, barrister, St Philips Chambers.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents