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

TORT: Advise all the parties as to their potential claims in the tort of negligence, if any, as a r

Extracts from this document...


TORT: Advise all the parties as to their potential claims in the tort of negligence, if any, as a r In advising the potential parties as to whether they have a prima facie case in the tort of negligence we must consider which parties have been wronged and then establish if they are owed a duty of care, whether there was a breach of that duty and whether the breach caused the damage for which the parties wish to claim damages. We must consider who is entitled to claim compensation and for what type of damage they sustained. It would seem that there is a prima facie claim from three of the parties involved Henry, Ron and Brenda for economic loss, negligence and nervous shock but there are also questions of novus actus interveniens a new intervening act, contributory negligence and several concurrent liability. Henry has lost �45,000 on the shares he bought in Abel. To have a potential claim in tort against either Tom or Technology Investments, the specialist magazine, he must prove on the balance of probabilities that there was negligence. He must first establish if there was a duty of care owed by either party to Henry. It has been the general presumption of tort law that recovery for "pure" economic loss was not actionable save in exceptional cases, to impose such a duty would lead to "...liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class...". ...read more.


There is also authority for the argument that a psychiatric illness that is expanded through another's negligence can give rise to liability for the plaintiffs future negligent actions although in this case certain actions failed for policy reasons. The nervous shock must also be a recognised psychiatric illness; mere grief or depression, unless clinical depression, is not sufficient. It would also probably fail on the question of remoteness, in this case was it foreseeable that damage would occur ?, probably not. The accident itself was caused by Henry, he clearly owed a duty of care as a motorist and was negligent in failing to notice that the traffic lights were not in use and not slowing down accordingly, instead he drove straight across without checking for traffic from other directions. Were Henry to be held liable then he may wish to claim that the highway authority is severally concurrently liable in its failure to maintain the traffic lights although if successful any award of damages would be proportionate to the degree of fault. Henry would also wish to claim that Ron was contributory negligent in failing to wear a helmet and damages would be reduced accordingly, 10% in Capps-v-Miller, although it is suggested that if Ron's damage was totally avoidable by the wearing of a helmet he could nevertheless still recover damages. Only if Ron was completely to blame for the accident thus exonerating all others would he lose all claim to damages. ...read more.


If Brenda is to claim her illness is derived from shock, shock being "...a sudden sensory perception..." she would have to advance medical evidence that the shock was an immediate cause and not some later manifestation through being worn down with grief. Brenda would thus seek damages for loss of earning both past and future and any other expenses incurred although she would have a duty to mitigate her losses by, say, obtaining other employment. Any social security paid from the date of claim to the settlement or five years later over and above �2,500 would have to be deducted from any award of damages under the Social Security Act (1989) s22 and paid by the defendant to the Department of Social Security. The fact that Brenda had claustrophobia when she was younger would not however affect her claim as the tortfeasor is said to take the plaintiff, defined as "...the reasonably strong nerved person..", as he finds him. Once the wrong has been established, unless the defendant knew of any special circumstances, assessment of damages covers all reasonable injuries sustained, what is known as the eggshell skull principle, although this principle lost some of its scope in The Edison where damages were awarded for the cost of comparable replacement goods and some loss of earnings not the total loss suffered because of impecuniosity. Claustrophobia is the direct opposite of agoraphobia and has no bearing on the present claim for damages as in this case there is no reoccurrence of the old injury thus an argument that Brenda already suffered some illness would fail on the question of causation, the damage constituting a new illness. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Tort Law 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 University Degree Tort Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Law of Tort Assignment.

    5 star(s)

    although it seems that since the enactment of the Human Rights Act, a remedy has been provided for this. It was also held in Z v UK that there had been no violation of Article 6. 'In TP and KM v United Kingdom [2001] 2 F.C.R 289, a judgment handed

  2. concurrent liability(TM) in tort and contract.

    The first solution has the advantages of simplicity, it was adopted by French law, that a party to a contract should pursue the remedy in contract alone. The second is the principle followed by German law which agrees with concurrent remedies.

  1. Consider what is meant by concurrent liability in tort and contract. Using examples from ...

    the building regulations, where the resulting defects are discovered before physical injuries occurs. The loss suffered is purely economic. In 1970, M bought one of a pair of houses built on a concrete raft foundation on an in-fill site. The raft was defective and differential settlement occurred.

  2. Duty of Care.

    The plaintiff paid the bank the standard inspection fees. The bank then issued a report that clearly stated completely absolves responsibility on the bank or surveyors. In sole reliance of the report, which said no repairs were needed, the plaintiff bought the house.

  1. Liability In Negligence Problem case. Advise Greenwichshire Police whether they owe a duty ...

    had seen ('watched the injuries sustained by his colleagues and the protestors') and heard during the incident. Additionally, considering that P.C Nick left his position with the police force, this further emphasises on the extent to which the event at the rally had affected his mental health.

  2. To succeed in a negligence action in tort, the claimant must prove three things

    care to all his visitors, except in so far as he is free to and does extend, restrict modify or exclude his duty to any visitor or visitors by agreement or otherwise" 2. The Occupiers Liability Act 1984 - This governs duty to persons other than visitors.

  1. To what difficulties had the use of a 'but-for' test of factual causation in ...

    So Lord Reid created a new test where the courts would ask; did the dust from the negligent source materially contribute to the illness? The meaning of 'material' here is very broad - anything outside de minimis was accepted. Thus in this case liability was upheld.

  2. Causation and Remoteness.

    Thus, 'but for' the mate not having the relevant certificates physically, the collision would have still occurred. In Barker v Willoughby [1970] it was held that where the defendant's tort results in the claimant having to change his job, the tort is not per se a 'cause' of subsequent damage

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