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

Drink Driving and Tort of Negligence Analysis

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Tort of Negligence Homework A) If David were considering suing Frank for Negligence, he would need to prove: * That Frank owed Him a duty of care. * That Frank had breached that duty of care. * That He suffered a loss as a result of that breach. In my opinion, the duty of care would accord with that of the Highway Code. That would require that one would drive on the left-hand side of the road, and drive within legislative rules of consumption of alcohol whilst driving. By driving on the wrong side of the road and by consuming alcohol in excess I can assume that Frank was negligent in respect of his legislative requirements. There is a requirement in law that a driver of a motor vehicle should be in full control of driving a motor vehicle at all times. When David's girlfriend grabbed his arm this seriously breached his requirement to be able to do so. However I would argue that David could not have foreseen that this action on his girlfriends part would have distracted him, to such an extent that he could have foreseen, the dire consequences of turning his head away from the road. ...read more.

Middle

From what little I know, Frank was over the limit, he has been described a s being drunk whilst driving. However, I do not know what speed he was driving at, or whether he, or indeed David, took any avoiding action to avoid the collision. My conclusion is that based on the limited evidence that has been presented that Frank is more liable than David in the circumstances that have been stated. However, I feel that the defence case would be based on the fact that Esther distracted David at a crucial time. My view is that whilst Frank is so obviously at fault at this instance (res ipsa loquitur) he would have to prove that there were extenuating circumstances to negate his negligence in this case. B) David may be in a better position to sue if the court were to see this as an obvious case of negligence as in cases where negligence is obvious, the ruling of res ipsa loquitur is applied. ...read more.

Conclusion

low flying aircraft, low flying birds, sound of the car horns etc, etc. What needs to be argued is whether or not David could have avoided collision with Franks car had Esther not grabbed his arm. I have very limited information as to whether this action by her actually changed any possible outcome. My gut reaction is that the Barrister would use the fact that she distracted David to reduce her any possible compensation for her in the circumstances as described. D) If Gordon, Esther's father visits hospital shortly after the accident and suffers from nervous shock, he may be eligible to sue Frank. If shortly, means with-in the same day, he will definitely be able to sue Frank. However, if shortly means after the day of the accident, the court would of probably ruled that he would have had time to calm himself, and expect that his daughter's state would be bad before seeing her, and he would have been unable to sue Frank. ?? ?? ?? ?? Tort Of Negligence Thomas Hobbs 04/10/02 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Educating Rita 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
  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work