Tort Assignment.

Authors Avatar

Tort Assignment-Semester One

Year Two.

Looking at John and Wendy’s situation, there are a number of possible claims they may be able to make, which I will discuss in turn. Unfortunately, there may also be a possible claim against John and Wendy, which I will also discuss during the course of this assignment.

The first claim that we need to look at, is a possible claim against Northern Gas for the damage caused to John and Wendy’s bungalow by the faulty gas mains laid by Dig Deep Ltd, a sub-contractor for Northern Gas. John and Wendy may be able to claim against Northern Gas for this under the principle of vicarious liability.

It is clear that the master is responsible for acts actually authorised by him:

for liability would exist in this case, even if the relation between the parties was

merely one of agency and not one of service at all.

Normally under the law of tort, specifically in this case vicarious liability, an employer is not liable for wrongs committed by independent contractors under the principle of vicarious liability, as there is absence of control on the employer’s part. If we apply this principle to John and Wendy’s case, it seems at first that they are not able to claim from Northern Gas for the damage caused to their bungalow.

        

[W]here someone employs an independent contractor to do his work on his

behalf he is not in the ordinary way responsible for any tort committed by the contractor in the course of the execution of the work.

However, the courts have taken exception to this if the tort committed falls into specific categories, such as cases involving fire escape and cases where the employer is under statutory duty to which he can’t delegate. However, when looking at John and Wendy’s case we need to look at the exception the courts take to cases involving hazardous acts.

The principle is that if a man does work on or near another’s property which involves danger to that property unless proper care is taken, he is liable to the owners...for damage resulting to it from the failure to take proper care, and is equally liable if, instead of doing the work himself, he procures another, whether agent, servant or otherwise, to do it for him.

Join now!

Without a doubt, the laying of gas mains constitutes as a hazardous act, and is therefore within the scope of this exception. However, as well as Dig Deep Ltd being negligent in the installing of the gas mains, Jamie, the site supervisor who inspected and approved the work after it was completed, is also negligent. Looking at the facts of this particular claim, it would be possible for them to make a successful claim against Dig Deep for the damage caused to their property. In terms of damages they can receive, the amount of damages awarded are calculated according ...

This is a preview of the whole essay