• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Tort law. As Abdul invited his neighbours children to his house, this established the relationship between the claimant and the defendant. As they were invited to swim in the swimming pool, and they were children, he has a greater responsibility to take c

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Tort law revision - unit 3!!! 2)B) Using the rules you set out in part a, dicuss whether Abdul has been negligent towards tom. Firstly the duty of care needs to be established. Firstly there needs to be a connection between the DF and the claimant, as established in the neighbour test from donoghue and Stevenson. As Abdul invited his neighbours children to his house, this established the relationship between the claimant and the defendant. As they were invited to swim in the swimming pool, and they were children, he has a greater responsibility to take care of them as children have less spacial awareness of things that go on around them then adults, so they are more likely to have harm caused to them than an adult. So they have been connected as neighbours in law, as Abdul has invited the children to swim in his swimming pool, as he has invited them he has created a duty of responsibility over the children as they are in his care. Also, as it is his swimming pool he has a duty to make sure that it is fit to be used by other people, and that there are no risks of sever injuries from the use of it. ...read more.

Middle

So this satisfies the p4rinciple from blyth v Birmingham waterworks. However, because he shouted to the children that it was wet, forewarning them about the risk of harm that could incur if they ran, this could work in his favour as he tried to do what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances which is to make sure that they knew before they got to the pool. Also, he could foresee some sort of harm occurring if he let the children in to the pool whilst the pavement is slippery, for even if someone walks along the pavement they could still slip if they aren't careful. The risk involved isn't a small one, which was highlighted by Bolton v stone, as people generally walk along the pavement to get in to a pool. The children wouldn't be able to avoid walking or running along the pavement to get in to the pool. He did forewarn the children that the pavement was slippery before they got to the pool, but he only told them whilst they were running in. As they were running in, this could mean they were running in to his house or running in to the garden or running in to the pool. ...read more.

Conclusion

can all be done with out much hassle on Abduls part as they are simple, and would only take about 30 minutes extra in time. But for the pavement being wet, tom wouldn't have hurt his leg. Also, but for the children running, and but for Abdul inviting them over when he knew the pavement was still wet, Tom wouldn't have fallen over and hurt his leg. Abdul is the legal cause of Tom injury, as his actions were the only cause of the broken leg, and if it wasn't for his actions Tom would have been fine, as there was no intervening acts to break the chain of causation. The test for remoteness of damage is the last thing to be satisfied. The way in which the injury occurred was foreseeable, so even if the extent of the injuries wasn't foreseeable, they would still be liabile. The fact that some sort of injury was foreseeable as the pavement was wet next to the pool, and the children were going to use the pool, and the fact that they were running towards the pool means that some sort of injury is foreseeable, even if the extent of it isn't. So Abdul would have been negligent towards Tom. ...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)

    Next indirect sex discrimination which is more subtle and includes cases such as R v Sec of State for Employment Ex p Equal Opportunities' commission : the rule which appeared equal was that all who were part-time were treated differently to full-time, considering most women are part time due to child care this was discrimination mainly towards women.

  2. Marked by a teacher

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

    4 star(s)

    Similarly in the case of Watkinson v British Railways Board was awarded �5670.98 due to an injury he received as a Locomotive driver. Finally a trainee floor tiler was awarded �5049.38 from an injury he received at work to his feet and toes.

  1. UNIT3 ASSIGNMENT4 LAW OF TORT

    "Material damage" must be "a physical deterioration of the property which must be visible to ordinary persons without recourse to scientific evidence". There must, however, be a diminution in the value of the property. An example is in St. Helen's Smelting Co..

  2. negligence in tort

    Duty means 'proximity' in the legal sense, and proximity means the level of closeness of relationship required for the particular kind of damage. Foresight of damage is required in all cases of negligence and there is a policy element, which is expressed by the view that it must be just

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

    Even if a man should kill his terminally wife to end her suffering (his 'motive'), his intention to kill her counts as the mens rea for murder (Cocker [1989]).

  2. Jenny had an argument with her boyfriend, David, which resulted in David throwing Jenny ...

    This type of mens rea is only used for certain cases of manslaughter. Crimes of strict liability are where the prosecution do not have to prove mens rea and are mainly used for regulatory offences such as traffic offences where the penalty is often a fine.

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

    relating to their health and safety. Both Anthony and Maria breached their duties relating to health and safety because Anthony whose the root cause of the negligence and Maria involved in the negligence chain and their negligence caused injury to Sam and death to Hugh.

  2. Tort law assignment. Brian fell against the standard of care a reasonable man would ...

    there is a special relationship between Brian and John, It must be proved that Brian the advisor possessed a special skill relating to the type of advice he gave and must have realise that the John (advisee) would rely on that skill.

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