• 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. 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. Duty of Care.

    It is known actually or inferentially that the advice so communicated is likely to be acted on by the advisee for the purpose without independent inquiry. 4. It is so acted on by the advisee to his detriment. It was conceded these are not conclusive conditions but only guides.

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

    Section 1(2) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 provides "a visitor is a person who would be treated at common law as an invitee or licensee". Where a person enters under a contract, a term would be implied that they owe that person a common duty of care this is shown in Section 5(1), and under section 2(6)

  2. Tort question - negligent misstatement in the Tort of negligence

    Bush, whereby C sought a loan on a mortgage to enable her to buy a house. D surveyed the house on behalf of the mortgage company, failing to notice a fundamental structural defect. As Bush must have known was likely, Smith gained access to the survey and relied on it instead of having one done independently.

  1. tort law problem

    With regards to Bill, Mary has alleged that he was dismissed from his former employment for embezzling the company's pension fund and served 18 months in prison for this. These allegations, which were printed in the local newspaper, are untrue and have damaged Bill's reputation.

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

    This is despite the House recognising that there could be no finite limit to new duty situations which may expand the ambit of liability not already covered by precedent, evidenced by Lord Macmillan at 619, stating: "[T]he categories of negligence are never closed"12.

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

    defendant?s published article or broadcast.[57] Even the defendants can provide a rough approximation for proving the truth, leading to more confusion and lack of clarity. British courts apply a far less stringent standard than U.S. courts for recovery in defamation claims.

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

    P Giliker and S Beckwith, Tort (2nd edn, Sweet & Maxwell Limited 2005) P Handford, Mullany & Handford, Tort Liability for Psychiatric Damages (1nd edn, Ryde, NSW: Law Book Company Limited 1993) P Handford, Mullany & Handford, Tort Liability for Psychiatric Damages (2nd edn, Ryde, NSW: Law Book Co 2006)

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