• 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. Duty of Care.

    Leigh & Sullivan Ltd v Akimon shipping Co Ltd, The Akimon [1986] The plaintiffs had bought goods from Korea that was shipped on the defendant's carrier. The goods were damaged. But, at the material time of carriage, the goods did not legally belong to the claimants.

  1. 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.

  2. The Role of Fault.

    The more at fault a defendant is, the highest degree being intention, then the more they will be held responsible for their crimes. There is also evidence to support this when looking at the two broad categories of crimes; Specific intent crimes and basic intent crimes.

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

    It was not until the following century and the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson8, where the claimant consumed part of a bottle of ginger beer, bought by a third party and suffered injury when a decomposed snail was found in the remainder, that these principles were developed into a relatively coherent concept.

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

    Tortious damages aim to put the claimant in the position it would have been had the tort not taken place, contractual damages aim to put the claimant in to a position it would have been in had the contract been properly performed.

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

    The plaintiff witnessed the incident with her own unaided sense [24] See North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters [2002] EWCA Civ 1792, NB. The courts exercise considerable discretion when deciding what amounts to a sudden shock [25] H Teff, âLiability for Negligently Inflicted Nervous Shockâ (1983)

  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