• 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. tort law problem

    and that they conduct these sexual acts in front of an un-curtained window. Again these statements have been published in the newspaper. These statements are all untrue and have damaged Sally's reputation. This can be seen through the word 'whore' being spoken in her direction.

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

    This embodies the incremental approach to deciding new duty situations. What can be said with confidence is that liability in tort for negligent statements is very narrow indeed. In Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964) the House of Lords stated that the criteria for the special relationship of reliance were: -

  1. Common law - Tort

    So, there was relationship between Cynthia and the Uptons of employer and employee. Cynthia wrongly advised a customer that a plant would have no allergic side effects. She breached the care of duty to customer. The customer sat next to the plant for several months and suffered a variety of respiratory disorders.

  2. A Critical Examination of the Concept of Breach of Duty of Care

    In Baker v Willoughby (1970) HL, claimant's left leg was injured in a car accident caused by the negligence of the defendant. Before the court case, the claimant was shot to the leg by robbers at his work place. The leg had to be amputated.

  1. Duty of Care.

    The claimant either has to demonstrate that the statute gives rise to an action for breach of statutory duty or must show that the circumstances are such as to raise a duty of care at common law. Anns v Merton Borough Council [1978] East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent

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

    A secondary victim is someone who witnesses the accident (but is not a direct participant) or arrives at the immediate aftermath of the accident. Secondary victims are required to satisfy additional criteria, which was set out in Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 A.C.

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

    Defamation is an extremely complex tort, with several jurisprudential difficulties and lack of clarity with respect to its treatment,[66] 2. Both systems, that is, the American ?free speech? and UK ?plaintiff-centric? systems of defamation law are riddled with problems on several levels, and assessing a suitable model for India

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

    It is clear that the Alcock mechanism is vague, unjust and unsatisfactory. Therefore, it does not fulfill Lord Bridge?s guideline for what policy consideration should be taken into account. This problems does not simple focus on the mechanisms, hence, we will then explore how the problem affect to the possibility

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