• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10

I am the company solicitor for Everlasting Estates Ltd., and have been required to draft a report for the Board of Directors of Everlasting Estates, explaining the company's liability and any defenses which the company may rely on.

Extracts from this document...


Glossary Terms 1. Tort - A series of duties imposed primarily by the law to regulate human contact. 2. Damages - Monetary compensation. 3. Plaintiff - Person who incites civil proceedings. 4. Defendant - The person who is accused of a crime. 5. Negligence - If a person acts carelessly and as a result of that carelessness, another is injured or suffers loss it may be that, that person is negligent in the law of tort. Not all careless acts will allow the wronged person to sue the wrongdoer for negligence. 6. Common Law - The law made by judges and contains in the decisions of judges. Common Law requires the employer to: * Owe duty of care towards his employees * Provide competent staff * Provide a safe system at work * Provide safe apparatus * Provide safe premises The major statutory duties giving rise to employer's civil liability are: * Construction regulations * Factories Act * Simultaneous criminal offence under the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974. Duty of care - The plaintiff (victim) must show that the defendant (wrongdoer) owes him a duty of care in law. Breach of duty - If established that a duty of care is owed to the plaintiff by the defendant, then the question of fact is whether or not the defendant is in breach of that duty of care. Breach of duty of care will have occurred if the defendant is shown to have acted in an unreasonable manner in the circumstances. Resulting damage to the plaintiff - The plaintiff has to show that the defendant's breach of duty and that nature of the loss caused the loss or damage he has suffered or damage suffered was foreseeable. 7. Contributory negligence - Negligence to partially the responsibility of the plaintiff to bear. In relation to causation, fault is NOT entirely the legal responsibility of either the plaintiff or the defendant. ...read more.


The appellants had a client called Easipower Ltd., customers of the respondents. Easipower asked the respondents for a reference as to the credit-worthiness of Easipower. Hedley Byrne extended the credit to Easipower Ltd., when Easipower went into liquidation, making the appellants a loss of over �17,000 on the advertising contracts. The appellants sued the respondents for the loss and were liable in negligence. Res ispa Liquitur means the thing or the facts speak for themselves. This rule will be argued by the plaintiff where he believes that the only explanation for the incident occurring in the defendant's negligence. Res ispa Liquitur relates to Bob's situation as Bob's explanation will be needed for the explanation for the incident against Bill Speed. The Byrne V Broadle (1863) case relates to Res ispa Liquitur. In this 'Byrne V Broadle (1863)' case stated the plaintiff brought an action in negligence alleging that as he was walking past the defendant's shop, a barrel of flour fell from a window above the shop and injured him. The defendant submitted that there was no evidence of negligence to go to the jury. The occurrence was of itself evidence of negligence quite sufficient to entitle the jury to find for the plaintiff, even in the absence of an explanation by the defendant. Consent means voluntary assumption of risk. In Bob's situation, there is no case of consent due to Bob did not voluntarily consent to harm himself or to cause the injury and claim for damages caused. There is strong case of contributory negligence in Bob's situation. This is due to although careless driving by Bill caused his injuries, but Bob was not wearing a hard hat, which in evidence states that his injuries would have been far less serious if he was wearing a hard hat. Although, from Bill's careless driving, he may not have been aware that Bob was behind the lorry, but this cannot be proven until someone witnessed the accident. ...read more.


* Ensure that no drivers are driving vehicles carelessly. * Train staff to use the safety equipment and apparatus accurately * Ensure that the employer provides a safe system of work. * Test all equipment from the manufacturer before buying it. * Employee acting negligently or causing tort of negligence to be resigned. * Provide good experience of work to all employees. Conclusion However, if Charles did not wear protective goggles, therefore the injuries he perceived are an act of negligence by himself. The Occupier s Liability Act 1957 clearly states that visitors are owed a duty of care, section 1 (2). Therefore it was up to Everlasting Estates to provide sufficient care for their staff. On the other hand, the defense can argue the case, as the plaintiff is partly to blame for the injuries, this is if Charles did not wear protective goggles Although, this would increase the eye injury more than before for which Everlasting Estates would not be held responsible entirely. It would have reduced the amount of injury caused. This comes under section 1 (1) of the law reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. Another related case, would be Wakelin V London & South Western Railway Co (1886). This case underlines that a difficult decision making process. Therefore it can be difficult to point out who is in the wrong. When all elements of negligence have been successfully established by the plaintiff, but in some way he/she has also been involved in contributory to his injuries by his own negligence, then the defendant can raise the defenses of contributory negligence. In the case of Charles, it is fairly clear that the incident did have some contribution of his own, if he did not wear the protective goggles. In the case of Bob, Bob would be able to claim for the damages but would be reduced according to the age of the employee and also because Bob was partly to be blamed (contributory negligence) for not wearing a hard hat. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    In the case of Wattleworth v Goodward Road Racing Company [2004] EWHC 140 (QB). A racing driver died when he crashed his car into an earth bank faced with lorry tyres during an amateur track day on the motor racing circuit which was owned by Goodward.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Questions related to the tort of negligence.

    3 star(s)

    usually a lot more able to pay out large amounts of compensation than the employee. It probably won't hurt the company to pay the compensation as much as it would hurt the employee. And the company will probably have insurance to cover just such an eventuality, meaning that an insurance group will pay the compensation.

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Homicide Act 1957

    3 star(s)

    The case of R v. Sanderson shows the difficulties that the jury may face where a D is intoxicated and suffering an abnormality of the mind. It has been doubted whether the temporary effect of alcohol can bring the D within the scope of S.2 of the 1957 Act. In the case of R v.

  2. Consider the meaning and importance of fault-based liability in English law

    The justification for this is that the employer should be able to exercise control over their employees and so they can be held liable for the torts of their employees providing that the employee is not on a 'frolic of his own'.

  1. Law- Negligence

    This led the courts to question the proximity of the respective applicants. The House of Lords extended the Hedley Byrne liability to proximate third parties. The subsequent developments the courts have untaken since the 1964 Hedley Byrne case can be seen in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970].


    Abatement of Nuisances: In addition to the usual remedies of damages and/or an injunction the law will sometimes allow the remedy of 'abatement', i.e.

  1. What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible ...

    At common law, it applied to the offence of manslaughter, which, until 1994, could be committed 'recklessly', but the House of Lords decision in R. v. Adomako (1994), means that we now apply a test of gross negligence.coaa aar seaaaaw oraa aak inaa foaa aa.

  2. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    The court system in England and Wales The lowest criminal courts or Magistrates' Courts deal with minor offences with more serious cases being heard in the Crown Court, in front of a judge and jury. The Crown Court also hears cases appealed from the Magistrates' Courts on factual points.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work