Breach of Duty Redressable by Action for Unliquidated Damages

In the law of torts, a breach of duty redressable by action for unliquidated damages constitutes the essential element of a civil wrong that gives rise to a tortious claim. It represents a situation where an individual’s legal duty towards another is violated, resulting in damage, injury, or loss, for which compensation can be sought through an action in court. Unlike breaches of contract or statutory liabilities, tortious wrongs are generally not predetermined or quantified; the damages awarded are unliquidated, meaning they are assessed by the court according to the extent of harm proven by the claimant.

Nature and Meaning

The phrase ‘breach of duty redressable by action for unliquidated damages’ encapsulates three key components of a tortious act — a legal duty, a breach of that duty, and damage capable of being compensated. The duty may arise either from common law or from statute, and the breach involves a failure to act as required by that duty. The damage must not be trivial but should be such that it can be remedied through monetary compensation.
Unliquidated damages differ from liquidated damages, which are predetermined or fixed in advance by agreement (as in contractual breaches). In tort, the court determines the compensation based on actual loss, suffering, or inconvenience suffered by the injured party. Thus, tort law primarily serves the function of compensation and deterrence, rather than punishment or enrichment.

Elements Constituting the Breach of Duty

To succeed in an action for damages arising from breach of duty, the claimant must establish certain elements:

• Existence of a Duty of Care: The defendant must owe a duty of care to the claimant. This arises when it is reasonably foreseeable that the defendant’s actions may cause harm to the claimant, as established in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), which laid down the “neighbour principle”.
• Breach of Duty: There must be a failure to exercise the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the same circumstances. The test of breach is objective and contextual.
• Causation and Damage: The claimant must show that the breach caused actual damage. The harm must not be too remote; it should be a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s conduct.
• Absence of Lawful Justification: The act or omission must be wrongful and unjustified under law.

Each of these elements must coexist for an action in tort to succeed. Mere moral or social wrongs do not constitute tortious liability unless they fulfil these legal conditions.

Classification and Examples

Breach of duty giving rise to unliquidated damages may arise in various branches of tort law. Common examples include:

• Negligence: Where one fails to exercise reasonable care, resulting in injury or loss. For instance, a driver causing an accident through careless driving.
• Nuisance: Interference with another’s use or enjoyment of land, such as through noise, smoke, or pollution.
• Defamation: Publication of a false statement harming another’s reputation.
• Trespass: Unlawful interference with person, property, or goods.
• Strict Liability: Liability arising even without fault, as in cases of inherently dangerous activities, following the precedent in Rylands v Fletcher (1868).

In all these instances, damages are not pre-calculated but determined by the court based on the circumstances and severity of harm.

Assessment of Unliquidated Damages

Unliquidated damages are assessed judicially to provide fair and reasonable compensation. The main objectives are to place the claimant in the position they would have been in had the tort not occurred, and to recognise intangible harms such as pain, suffering, and loss of amenity.
The assessment may include:

• Special Damages: Quantifiable losses such as medical expenses, repair costs, or lost earnings.
• General Damages: Non-pecuniary losses including physical pain, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.
• Aggravated or Exemplary Damages: Awarded in exceptional cases where the defendant’s conduct was malicious, oppressive, or outrageous.

Courts employ both precedents and statutory guidance in determining the quantum, ensuring consistency and proportionality in awards.

Distinction from Contractual Breach

Although both tort and contract provide remedies through damages, they differ fundamentally:

• In contract, the duty arises from agreement between the parties; in tort, it arises from law.
• Contractual damages are usually liquidated or measurable, while tortious damages are unliquidated.
• The purpose of contractual damages is to uphold the expectation interest of the parties, whereas tortious damages aim to compensate for harm done and restore the injured party.

For example, if a service provider fails to deliver as promised, it is a contractual breach; but if a negligent act by that provider causes injury or damage, it is a tortious breach of duty.

Judicial Interpretation and Leading Cases

Judicial interpretation has refined the principles governing breach of duty and redressability. In Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), the House of Lords articulated the foundation of modern negligence by imposing a duty of care based on foreseeability and proximity. Similarly, in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990), the court laid down a threefold test — foreseeability, proximity, and fairness — for establishing duty.
In Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957), the court held that professionals are not negligent if they act in accordance with a responsible body of opinion in their field. These decisions collectively shape how courts evaluate whether a breach is actionable and what constitutes reasonable care.

Importance in Civil Law

The principle of breach of duty redressable by unliquidated damages is central to the law of torts because it establishes the boundary between civil wrongs and other forms of legal liability. It ensures that individuals and entities act with due regard for the rights and safety of others. The availability of unliquidated damages provides flexibility and fairness, allowing compensation to be tailored to the actual harm suffered.