• 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. The law of Tort.

    Lord Wilberforce felt that policy factors such as proximity of the relationship, proximity to the accident or its aftermath, and direct perception should be "inherent in any claim"32 as necessary limitations on the application of reasonable foreseeability. The Irish courts, roughly a decade later, followed a similar line to the majority of McLoughlin, in the case of Mullally v.

  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

    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.

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

    If proved then he would satisfy the first requirement. The second requirement of proximity would be difficult for Anthony to show because he was in Hong Kong. He did not see the accident or the immediate aftermath as shown by the case of Palmer v.

  1. Duty of Care.

    Baker v T E Hopkins & Sons Ltd. If someone negligently imperils himself, in the circumstances where it is foreseeable that someone may attempt to rescue him he will be liable for the rescuer's injuries, even though no one owes a duty to preserve his own safety.

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

    in the objective test26 it make sense of reasonableness that SimpleFlight.com Ltd providing such services are appropriate air travel in terms of domestic and brief flights, Nettleship v Watson 197127. The vicarious factor for informing the victim in inter alia can be understood by Morris v West Hartlepool Steam 195128.

  1. Part a: Look at tort of trespass and Part b:Essay question on consumer protection ...

    In order for Debbie to claim under negligence, she must prove three elements. The leading case in this area of law is Donoghue v Stevenson4. This leading case is significant because it established that a duty of care is owed from the manufacturers.

  2. Economic Loss Problem Question. Jessica is unable to do any sewing for several ...

    Stephen reports that the premises are in a sound structural condition. On the basis of this report, Creditwise Mortgage Company grants Jessica a mortgage to buy the premises. A month later, XED Exec Clothing, having received several orders from Jessica, is declared bankrupt and unable to pay its creditors.

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