• 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

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.

Middle

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.

Conclusion

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. Nuisance Problem Answer.

    An occupier is responsible for nuisances created by his employees, agents, family, guests and independent contractors.(apply to question). It is possible that may have a defence available, potentially available defences include statutory authority, prescription, assumption of risk, contributory negligence,

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

    In order to establish a duty of care the claimant must prove that a 'special relationship' exists between the claimant and the defendant. The current approach is to determine each case on its particular facts, in the light of similar cases.

  1. Duty of Care.

    Thus a decision to take a child into local authority care, which involved exercising discretion under a statutory power, was not justiciable but having taken the child into care, it was at least arguable that the local authority could be liable for decisions taken about how the child should be dealt in terms of his education and upbringing.

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

    arrive at the immediate aftermath, so he can not sue as a secondary victim. After the Alcock case the House of Lords stated the requirements for a duty of care in nervous shock are: 1. A close relationship of love and affection with the victim so that it was foreseeable

  1. How do the Courts in England and Wales decide when a duty is owed ...

    The House found in favour of the plaintiff and in doing so Lord Reid stated in his judgment regarding the "neighbour principle" that: "the time has come when we can and should say that it ought to apply unless there is some justification or valid explanation for its exclusion."14 This

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

    This does not exist in American law. [63] Further defendants in England, can use a variety of pecuniary tools to bring an end to proceedings, primarily revolving around pre-trial settlement. Rejection of such offers can impose great expense on the plaintiffs. Further claimants do not avail legal aid and conditional fee systems for availing counsels are not easily granted.

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

    proximity test on the ground that the identification could not be described as part of the "immediate aftermath." The moment that ?immediate aftermath? covey to ?aftermath? is artificial and vague. As Lord Jauncey in his judgement, emphasised that to attempt a comprehensive definition of the "immediate aftermath" would be a

  2. Liability Without Fault

    and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under the agreement. In the case of Motor Owners? Vehicles Co.

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