• 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)

    part 3 public order act 1986 creates the offence of racial hatred. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 creates the offence of racial aggravated assault and the Religious Hatred Act 2006 creates the offence of incitement to religious hatred e.g.

  2. Marked by a teacher

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

    4 star(s)

    This is in contrast to the general public where the sentencing given is fully fitting for the crime and is not reduced due to 'spur or heat of the moment' incidents. If the incidents above happened in the general public domain, depending on the person and circumstances the sentencing is

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

    The statute was in fact drafted by the Law Commission who clearly had the Cunningham decision in mind, indeed quite recently the Law Commissioncogg ggr seggggw orgg ggk ingg fogg gg. have produced a proposal for the codification of the whole of the criminal law in which recklessness is still defined in this sense.

  2. UNIT3 ASSIGNMENT4 LAW OF TORT

    'servitudes' are rights of third parties that exist over land, e.g. rights to light, rights to support, rights of way, rights to graze animals, fishing rights, etc.). Private nuisance, as can be seen, can be further subdivided into two categories: Indirect interference causing material damage Such as, smoke, gas, heat, vibrations, and Roots (of trees).

  1. British Law in Health and Social Care

    This definition of duty of care known today came from Lord Atkin and the 'Neighbour Principle' that came from the judgement on the Donoghue vs. Stevenson case in 1932. The Donoghue verses Stevenson is the case of Mrs Donoghue claiming damages from gastroenteritis after drinking a bottle of ginger beer and finding a decomposing snail in it.

  2. negligence in tort

    Due to his arm injury, he was not able to steer his bicycle correctly and, therefore, he collided with Shamilla. Prakash was expected of what a prudent man or reasonable man would do. Once it has been established that there is a sufficient relationship between the parties to establish a

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

    who may be affected thereby and not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety. Furthermore, Anthony and Maria also owe duties of persons concerned with premises, in which, they are liable to persons (other than their employees)

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

    As carefully considered advice was being sought from John who knew Brian would have some expertise about shares as a he was a part qualified accountant. It was in Yianni v Edwin Evans 1982 which established the existence of a special and that even if there is no contractual relationship

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