• 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)

    some religions such as the Sikh are recognised as a racial group and therefore have wider protection under the PRA 1976. However the Equality Act 2006 has widened the law to stop discrimination against religion in the form of religions in education.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Questions related to the tort of negligence.

    3 star(s)

    This case relates to negligence (as defined above) and the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur - the facts speak for themselves. In cases involving proven Res Ipsa Loquitur, the burden to show that the defendant was negligent (or whatever the tort may be)

  1. 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.

  2. Law- Negligence

    raise a duty of care where the defendant has a right of control over the third party. After the Caparo case in 1990, the fourth rule was set out in Hedley Byrne- that other party knew, or ought to have known, the purpose for which the defendant required the advice or information.

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

    conviction of defendant being in possessions of drugs whereas in Sweet v Parsley1970 the defendant conviction was as she did not have the mens rea of the crime. A negative cause for strict liability is that the courts may also have a clack of clarity in some judgments in Warner

  2. Gross negligence and recklessness.

    At common law, it applied to the offence of manslaughter which, until 1994, could be committed 'recklessly' but the House of Lords decision in Adomako means that we now apply a test of gross negligence. Thus, in considering the standards, which the courts use to assess blame and impose criminal

  1. Discuss the meaning of fault on the basis for criminal liability. Explain and evaluate ...

    For section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act (1861), this requires proof of intention to cause serious harm to prove that the defendant was at fault, whereas in section 20 of the OAPA (1861), this requires either intention or recklessness to cause some harm.

  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