If respect should be earned. . . . what does that mean for the law of negligence and the duty of care?

Question

But should it also mean that a duty of care is not owed?

My point is more to do with the reason for the laws - it is agreed that people should respect each other.

Answer 1

Surely respect is an ethical situation while the others are clearly legal situations?

Answer 2

You ask if respect should be earned, what does that mean for the duty of care in negligence?

Well the general rule is that the duty of care is owed irrespective of any need for person to whom the duty is owed to earn respect from the tortfeasor (e.g. Donaghue v Stevenson - 'you must not injure your neighbour' when 'the circumstances are such that you can reasonably forsee you would injure your neighbour' (paraphrase)

However if respect should be earned, does that and ought it to have a meaning for the law of negligence?

Well, descriptively there is little express authority to suggest that given respect being earned, that should have consequences for the law on negligence. But impliedly I suppose one can argue that given respect being earned, the law of negligence should respond when that respect is earned. So for e.g., if you are a doctor - you command implied respect. Therefore the law responds by imposing a duty of care. This is what the law formerly did pre 1932 - imposing a duty of care in pre-existing duty of care situations. Also, respect commanded by the tortfeasor affects and heightens the standard of care because we expect the tortfeasor to act more carefully.

The problem with this argument is that the respect earned by the tortfeasor really has no express effect on the existence of the duty of care, if we accept the duty of care circumstances defined by Lord Atkin in Donague v Stevenson. But there are other definitions where respect earned may impact on the existence of the duty of care (pre existing duty of care situations).

Whether this ought to be the case is also a difficult issue.

Now with regard to respect earned by the person claiming negligence (tortfeasee) there is little express evidence to say this has impact on the law of negligence and the duty of care. Everyone within a particular duty of care situation is owed a duty, not just those who earn respect, if we accept respect should be earned.

Answer 3

Nothing really, the law of negligence and duty of care means that a reasonable duty of care is owed, so that harm is not caused by negligent behaviour... ie provision of fire escapes, a sign to warn of wet paint etc etc. If, for example, Bob decides to clean the steps and leaves them all slippy with soap, Jim comes along and slips and breaks a leg, then he could sue Bob for negligence... however if Bob puts a barrier up with a 'wet floor' sign, then Jim is forewarned and most likely the accident is avoided. It has absolutely nothing to do with respect... whether you respect someone or not you still owe them a duty of care.

Answer 4

negligence - it must be shown that a duty is owed, there has been a breach of that duty, and that there is a form of loss

duty of care - to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which they can reasonably foresee that are likely to injure their neighbour

unfortunately the definition of neighbour is quite clear [persons who are so closely and directly affected by your act
that you ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when you are directing your mind to the acts or omissions which are called into question],

and it therefore doesnt matter whether you respect them or not

Answer 5

Negligence and Duty of Care have NOTHING to do with respect. If I am anywhere close to understanding your question, the answer is "absolutely nothing".

Answer 6

I think the respect you're speaking of can't really be legislated.

Laws regarding care, and when lack of care have nothing to do with whether one has earned respect. Those laws are about appropriately meeting the needs of those who can't meet their own needs.

Answer 7

I think that the ambulance chasers and the socialists have done away with such concepts as negligence and duty of care. Liability and consequential damages in all circumstances are now absolute for all professional people and corporate, state entities..
The only exceptions are lawyers and politicians.

Answer 8

negligence as a form of tort law simply exists to prevent harm to others.

We owe moral conduct to ourselves, if not then to other people.

Answer 9

Absolutely nothing. The legal standard is not esoteric. It's the legal standard. The two concepts have no relation whatsoever.

EDIT: For Malibu. Are you a fellow Pepperdine Alum?

Answer 10

Uh, rephrase please. Perhaps there's a coherent question in there somewhere.