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

Tort Problem Question Answer

Extracts from this document...


Introduction I will be considering each plausible defendant in turn, whom Mr. Colin (hereby referred to as the claimant) could recover compensation for his injuries under the law of tort. The principle area that this question is concerned with is the breach in duty of care due to negligence. Hence, we will be looking at whether or not the claimant is liable to succeed in this claim. The burden of proof lies upon the Claimant to prove that the elements of negligence were present and hence make the defendant(s) liable. Claim Against Kylie Claim against Negligence When we consider the actions of Kylie (hereby referred to as Defendant 1), it is plainly visible that her actions were negligent as she had wandered outside of the school property and stood in the centre of the road. A reasonable man would not have done so. Pedestrians are supposed to be aware of the traffic and move along the road with caution and young children especially are not allowed to be alone in the road , as per clause 4 of the Highway Code's Rules for Pedestrians1, which the Defendant 1 had failed to do. And so, we must conclude that the Defendant 1 had a duty of care towards the other road users, breached it, and hence caused the events that followed and the damages that were done. ...read more.


and hence, had breached this duty of care by exceeding the driving speed limit. Exceeding the speed limit, especially in a case where there is a school nearby, is considered an offence by the Highway Code. Speeding in turn had caused the Defendant 2 to hit the Claimant and cause him physical injury. Now the question rises whether the Defendant 2 is to be held completely liable for the damages suffered by the Claimant and hence the value of his compensation. Lord Pearce had said The defenders are therefore liable for all the foreseeable consequences of their neglect... When an accident is of a different type and kind from anything that a defender could have foreseen he is not liable for it...7 Taking this statement into reference, we must now decide whether Defendant 2 could have foreseen the events that had occurred due to his negligence. If we place a reasonable and prudent person in Defendant 2's place, would he have foreseen an accident occurring due to his speeding? It should be natural to assume so. Even though he managed to swerve just in time to prevent hitting the Defendant 1, in doing so, he had caused an accident with the Claimant. ...read more.


But to demand too great precision in the test of foreseeability would be unfair to the pursuer since the facets of misadventure are innumerable...11 Meaning that even though an omission by the school can be considered a negligent act, as it had a duty towards the students and their parents, and they breached it, causing a loss to a third party, they cannot be held liable since a reasonable man could not have foreseen the circumstances that prevailed. Also since the acts of the Claimant, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 can be considered outright reckless and outlandish; it is very likely to break the chain of causation. Conclusion The Claimant could claim under negligence against Defendant 2 (Derek) and claim a reduced compensation for the injuries to his left leg. The injuries to his right leg were caused by the clumsiness of the Claimant and hence cannot be considered as damage caused due to the events in the scenario. This is substantiated by the fact that the hospital had discharged the Claimant, which brings us to believe that the Claimant should be capable of doing daily necessary tasks like using the stars. Proximity also plays a role in deciding here, as one whole day had passed between the accident and the falling from the stairs, which shows that there is reason to hold that there was a gap inbetween. ...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. The law of Tort.

    primary victims because they failed to establish a close enough relationship; secondly, to those who had come upon the aftermath some hours later because they failed to establish spatial proximity; and thirdly, to those who had witnessed events on live television because it was felt not to be reasonably foreseeable that such images would be broadcast.

  2. tort law problem

    His application for a new job has been terminated 'in light of recent news' which will most likely have come from Mary's allegations. It is clear therefore that Bill has been named and people have understood the allegations to be about Bill.

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

    where persons are entering for any purpose in the exercise of a right conferred by law. So in this case Mr Arantes would be able to claim he is a visitor under section 5(1) and section 2(6) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957.

  2. Nuisance Problem Answer.

    With regard to the problems being experienced by is ( mention which is/are the most relevant explain each, give case examples and apply) The unreasonableness will only constitute a nuisance if it is ongoing.

  1. Tort Law Problem Case. The Plaintiff (widow of the deceased) namely Mrs Fogg is ...

    SimpleFlight.com is known for providing cheap low budget flights and for providing minimal leg room for passengers, at least 5cm less than their competitors which means there can be harmful risk. But the flight travel from Newcastle to London approximately lasts for 30 minutes therefore it is way too short to cause a blood clot.

  2. Duty of Care.

    After 11 month it still had not and an accident took place due to restricted visibility created by the bank. The HoL held that the authority was still not liable. Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] The mother of a murder victim claimed that the police were negligent in not apprehending the murderer before her daughter was killed.

  1. Defamation Law: A Comparative Study of the US and the UK

    A plaintiff is a plaintiff, and has to simply, but clearly prove that s/he was defamed by the defendant, and how. The element of public or private figures comes in only terms of defenses, that is, in terms of justification (for public good)

  2. McLoughlin v OBrian [1983] AC 410, per Lord Bridge, at 441. Discuss the above ...

    [11] The defendant should reasonably foresee injuries to these groups but not necessarily to others such as siblings who would have to show evidence of their closeness. However, commenters namely Weir, believes that such requirement causes âembarrassmentâ to claimants who face cross-examination on their closeness therefore creates contradiction by investigators

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