• 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.

    However if this defective product caused physical injury then A can claim in contract or in tort or under statute. Also in employment law where an employer negligently causes damage to the employee, duty of care has been breached but they are also in an existing contract.

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

    If Mrs N were found to satisfy all three requirements she would be able to sue for nervous shock. Does Anthony satisfy all three requirements set out by Alcock? The first point of a close relationship with the children would need to be proved because he was not there father.

  2. Duty of Care.

    Hyett v Great Western Railway [1948] The duty of care also extend to rescuers of property although a rescuer would have to be more circumspect about the risks that he could legitimately accept without being regarded as wanton or foolhardy and hence contributory negligence.

  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. tort law problem

    This comes from Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspaper Ltd11. For the statement to be published it must be communicated to someone other than the person defamed12 who must hear or read the statement and understand it13. Now we must establish whether any actions for defamation can be brought. When looking at the situation it is clear Bill, Sally and Felicity have grounds to commence legal proceedings.

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

    advice as a tool in his self promotion of his goods, and he was a business man; a professional. He gave his personal assurances in a business setting, although it was free and for the same purpose as it was used almost; to sell his home improvement products- it was given in a business context that his advice was given.

  2. 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

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