• 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
  11. 11
  12. 12

Three liability cases - Claim 1-- Auto Emergency Breakdown Service Claim 2- Santa Rosa Institution Claim 3: Finest Wine L

Extracts from this document...


Table of content Claim 1-- Auto Emergency Breakdown Service.............................................3 Claim 2- Santa Rosa Institution................................................................6 Claim 3: Finest Wine Ltd......................................................................10 Reference ........................................................................................14 Claim 1- Auto Emergency Breakdown Service. Tom Lee, 16 years old, was riding with a friend on the Pan Island Express way near Clementi town when the car developed engine trouble. The friend pulled the car onto the road shoulder near a callbox and called the Auto Emergency Breakdown Service Hotline. They waited in the car for the tow truck, which was dispatched when the call came in at 2:30am. The towing truck failed to locate the stalled car. At 3:35am, a drunk driver crashed into the car, causing Tom injuries that led to his death. Required: 3a Describe the nature of general tortious liability comparing and contrasting to contractual liability Answer: Tortious liability A tort is a civil wrong. Unlike the obligations voluntarily accepted by the parties to a contract, a tort consists of the breach of a duty imposed by the law. The law of tort seeks to provide a legal remedy for the victims of certain forms of harmful conduct. Tort duties are owned to a wide range of persons and are not dependent on the existence of a contractual relationship. Although this area of law if often referred to as the law of tort, in reality a number of distinct areas of tortuous liability have been developed to protect people from the many forms of wrongful conduct which may occur in modern society. Basis of tortuous liability Liability in tort is essentially 'fault-based'. This means that a claimant must prove that the defendant acted intentionally or negligently and was, therefore, blameworthy. ...read more.


However, employers also have a duty not to cause psychiatric injury to their employees and, to a much more limited extent, not to cause them economic loss. The scope of the employer's duty An employer's personal duty to employees, under any of the above heads, can be discharged by taking reasonable care; it is not an absolute duty to eliminate all risks. Delegating the employer's duty Clearly there will be many situations where the employer hands over day-to-day responsibility for safety procedures to certain employees, if those employees do not take the reasonable care expected by the law; it is the employer who remains liable. The employer's duty is therefore known as non-delegable: an employer can delegate the performance of the duty, but not the liability for that performance. Vicarious liability There are some situations in which one person will be held legally liable for torts committed by someone else; this is known as vicarious liability. Vicarious liability arises where there is a relationship between the tortfeasor and the party who becomes vicariously liable which justifies giving the latter responsibility for the acts of the former. In the modern law, this is usually a relationship of employee and employer, and so vicarious liability cases usually involve events which happen at or in connection with work. The principle is sometimes justified by the moral idea that if you have some degree of authority over another's actions, you should bear some responsibility for their mistakes, especially if you profit from their work. In reality, however, vicarious liability has become a practical tool to help compensate victims, since it allows liability to be placed with a party who is likely to be insured, in situations where the actual tortfeasor will probably not have the resources to meet a claim. ...read more.


Even if some were harmed, the professionals took reasonable care for risk to their patients Damage resulting from that breach For a defendant to be held liable, it must be shown that the particular acts or omissions were the cause of the loss or damage sustained. Although the notion sounds simple, the causation between one's breach of duty and the harm that results to another can at times be very complicated. The basic test is to ask whether the injury would have occurred but for, or without, the accused party's breach of the duty owed to the injured party. Even more precisely, if a breaching party materially increases the risk of harm to another, then the breaching party can be sued to the value of harm that he caused. Asbestos litigations which have been ongoing for decades revolve around the issue of causation. Interwoven with the simple idea of a party causing harm to another are issues on insurance bills and compensations, which sometimes drove compensating companies out of business Conclusion For the case, we can see that, the company breach the duty, they could not sale the wine to these boys, because they were under the age to consume alcohol. And the bad things is that because they breach the duty, and then cause damage resulting from that breach, cause the boy was killed. Therefore, the company need to responsible for it, although the boy driving in illegal, for the company, the company needs to make compensation. Reference list Business law, 6th edition, Catherine Frances Tort law, 7th edition, Catherine Frances http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort (accessed on 12 Aug 2010) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence (accessed on 13 Aug 2010) Singapore business law, 5th edition, Frances Quinn http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/n010.htm (accessed on 14 Aug 2010) http://east.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negligence (accessed on 14 Aug 2010) ?? ?? ?? ?? Common law 1 ...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

    Discuss the extent to which discrimination is prohibited under English and Welsh law (25 ...

    5 star(s)

    Regulations 2006 making it unlawful to discriminate or treat anyone differently because of his or her age in employment; some discrimination is justified to protect younger or older individuals or workers and to help integration. Another exemption would be where professional experience or seniority is needed.

  2. Marked by a teacher

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

    4 star(s)

    voluntarily assumed to take the risk involved, although knowledge of the danger does not necessarily imply consent. Volenti succeeded in the case of Morris v Murray 1990 3 All ER 801 after the plaintiff accepted a lift with a drunk driver.

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Questions related to the tort of negligence.

    3 star(s)

    won the case. I would say that the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur would help Freddy in his action, in that there isn't any other reasonable explanation apparent, so when the burden shifts to Elvis, he may not be able to come up with one, and so Freddy will win his case.

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

    The defendant clearly had the necessary mens rea, he intended to kill his mother, but chance meant his mother died of natural causes, just a few moments later and maybe the poison could have had an input. However, the poison did not cause the prohibited result so he was not criminally liable.

  1. Examine the arguments for and against strict liability illustrating your answer with example of ...

    as there were too many speeches it was difficult for them to extract the ratio decidendi which is the main important part of the judgement. This could lead to legal academics to criticised the house and thus lead there actions to do the opposite of what they intended.

  2. Occupiers liability - Both Mike and Nigel will have a claim in the tort ...

    is aware that some youths from a nearby estate had occasionally come in to his danger at night and used the swimming pool.

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

    appreciates the risk but goes ahead anyhow and entails the conscious running of an unjustifiable risk and as such is foresight. E0E Visit coursework ea in ea fo ea for ea more hypothesis ea Do ea not ea redistribute E0E In R.

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

    Much of the relationship between the Sovereign and Parliament is based on tradition rather than statute. The Government has two legislative chambers: the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The House of Commons consists of elected members and the House of Lords consists of elected peers as well as those with inherited titles (currently undergoing reform).

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