• 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

    Phil and the readers of the newspaper have been published and understood. An action for defamation may also be possible to Andrew however the situation differs as some of the allegations made are in part true. Mary has alleged Andrew is a yob with a drugs habit who has often been seen smoking cannabis.

  2. The law of Tort.

    Indeed, once the fear of personal injury is reasonably foreseeable, it matters not whether the psychiatric injury itself is foreseeable.30 The above principle, concerning so-called 'primary victims,' i.e. those who were foreseeable participants in the accident, is well established and gives little difficulty.

  1. 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.

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

    Nor will a defendant be able to rely on disability - a partially sighted driver and learner driver owe the same duty of care as one with normal sight. But there are cases which are approached differently. 1. Children In Mullin v Richards (1998)

  1. Duty of Care.

    Capital and Counties plc v New Hampshire County Council [1997] It was held that the fire brigade which switched off the sprinkler system in a burning building did owe a duty of care to the claimants not to exacerbate the situation.

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

    Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 3. They suffered nervous shock through seeing or hearing the accident or its immediate aftermath. A person who was informed of the accident by a third party would have no claim. White v. Chief constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 1 ALL ER 1.

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

    Article 20 of Warsaw Convention treaty25 states "The carrier is not liable if he proves that he and his agents have taken all necessary measures to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for him or them to take such measures."

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

    Having lost its biggest client, Jessicaâs business runs into financial difficulties. She decides to realise her shares in Total Investments, and discovers that it has been blacklisted for fraud, is no longer doing business and has had its assets frozen.

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