Tort Negligence

Joan v Sally

Based on the neighbor principle, it is reasonable to expect the parents pay reasonable attention and supervision to their children so as to prevent them from injuring others. Although it is not necessary to keep a child under constant supervision (Chan Wai Nga v Tam Chi Wai & Another), a parent owes a duty to exercise a reasonable degree of supervision of children, in view of any foreseeable danger in the activities the child was engaged. The case closely in point is May Ngai Gloves Factory Ltd, where parent and child are crossing the road. Given Eric was only 4 years old, a reasonable mother might have paid more attention and supervision to the kid. The situation here may have given rise to a duty of care owed by Sally to other people on the road.

Assuming duty of care established, unless Sally can show she had exercised reasonable degree of supervision over Eric at the time of accident, there is likely a breach of duty by her.

Assuming duty of care and breach established, causation between the injuries suffered by Joan and Sally’s negligent act has to be shown. Since Joan was hit by Harry’s car, there is unlikely to be causation between the accident and Sally’s failure to supervise Eric reasonably. Nevertheless, Harry was not negligent in driving the car. Applying the but – for test in Barnett, it is likely Joan would not have been hit but for Sally’s failure to supervise Eric while waiting to cross the road. Joan needs to show that the damage is not remote as well. As long as the type of harm is reasonably foreseeable, the damage is not remote (The Wagon Mound 1). Here, any negligence happen on the road could reasonably and foreseeably lead to physical harm. Therefore, the physical injury suffered by Joan is less likely to be remote.

To conclude, the claim is likely to succeed unless Sally can show her supervision towards Eric at the time of accident was reasonable.

Peter v Sally

Despite Peter suffered no physical injury and thus...