• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  9. 9
    9
  10. 10
    10
  11. 11
    11
  12. 12
    12
  13. 13
    13
  14. 14
    14
  15. 15
    15
  16. 16
    16
  17. 17
    17
  18. 18
    18
  19. 19
    19
  20. 20
    20
  21. 21
    21
  22. 22
    22

In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In addition, nature of liability in tort of negligence is analyzed, including occupier liability, strict liability, health and safety issue

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION 3.1. Tortuous liability and contractual liability 3.1.1. UK legal system 3.1.2. Tortuous liability and contractual liability 3.2. Nature of liability of negligence 3.2.1. Legal aspects 3.3. Vicarious liability 3.3.1. General vicarious liability 3.3.2. Employer?s liability 3.3.3. Health and safety issues 3.3.4. Scenario analysis 4. Elements of tort of negligence II. CONCLUTION REFERENCES ________________ Memo To: Mr. Padmanaban Badri Narayanan From: Tran Nguyen Thao Suong Regarding: Report on Business Contract Date: 23th December 2012 Dear Mr. Padmanaban Badri Narayanan, I am Tran Nguyen Thao Suong from class SUD11, University of Sunderland. I wrote this memo to you in order to support you approach my work easily. I have spent times for doing this assignment. During the work, I understand some certain aspects of tort. I have also earned lots of essential knowledge and developed skills relating to the practical application of tort and other issues of liability and negligence relating occupier liability and vicarious that I can apply in real life situations. In addition, I discussed with my friends to sort out problems and come up with solutions. This attempt supports me a lot and enhances my teamwork ability. With all enthusiasm put into the assignment, I am proud of my work and ensure that there is no problem relating to plagiarism. Moreover, I want to say a great thanks to you for your professional support. Yours sincerely, Tran Nguyen Thao Suong. ________________ I. INTRODUCTION It is importance to clearly understand various essentials of a tort and negligence in real life. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In addition, nature of liability in tort of negligence is analyzed, including occupier liability, strict liability, health and safety issue. Especially vicarious liability is also explained. There are also applications to cases with solutions in order to help understand more about the tort and negligence liability. ...read more.

Middle

Employers are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment (Source: Wikipedia) The most important element to establishing a case for vicarious liability is that the wrongdoer be acting as a servant or employee, and that the wrong done be connected to the employee's course of employment. Vicarious liability can only be imposed if it is proved that the employee was acting ?in the course of employment.? For example, if the driver of a gasoline delivery truck runs a red light on the way to a gas station and strikes another car, causing injury, the gasoline delivery company will be responsible for the damages if the driver is found to be negligent. Because the company will automatically be found liable if the driver is negligent. They have been charged when an employee is charged with sexual harassment, discriminatory behavior towards potential employees or customers, and any other situation where an employee somehow causes harm to another. An employer can be roped into a legal situation regardless of whether the employee is acting against policies set by the employer or following the rules to the letter. Even though the employer is not the one who committed the unlawful act, the employer is held liable because it is considered responsible for its employees' actions while they are on the job and it is considered to be able to prevent and/or limit any harmful acts performed by employees. The employer may be able to avoid vicarious liability by exercising reasonable care to prevent the unlawful behavior. 3.3.3. Health and safety issues Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 Often referred to as HASAW or HSW, this Act of Parliament is the main piece of UK health and safety legislation. The Act defines general duties on employers, employees, contractors, suppliers of goods and substances for use at work, persons in control of work premises, and those who manage and maintain them, and persons in general. ...read more.

Conclusion

In case of Miranda, due to the chemicals in her shop, the fire got intensive and caused explosion causing hurt to Sam and death to Hugh. However, Miranda did not breach her duty of care because the fire is unforeseeable, and she has taken reasonable care for her premises. Sam has a duty of persuade the crowd to move to a safe place. But he didn?t pay attention to Hugh, making him suffered damage. Thus he has breach his standard duty of care as failed to perform as a reasonable man. Factual causation: A restaurant is where there are many things could ignite and cause fire such as gas stoves, oil, etc. Similarly there are many things in dry cleaning shop can ignite and cause fire like irons, clothes, chemicals. The two shops were next to each other which is a great condition for fire to spread. Damages: The fire from Anthony?s restaurant spread to Miranda?s shop causing explosion. The explosion caused injury to Sam and caused death to Hugh later due to the shock of his injury. Due to Sam negligence, Hugh suffered injury and shock resulting in his death. Conclusion: Anthony is liable for causing damage to Miranda?s shop due to his negligence. Therefore Maria can claim for damages. Titus is not liable for causing the fire became intensive because he was just doing his duty of a firemen and the oil-can was not foreseeable. Miranda is not liable for the explosion and Sam?s injury and Hugh?s death since the fire is unforeseeable. Sam is liable for the death of Hugh. Hugh?s parents can claim for damages. II. CONCLUTION Tort is very common in real life, particularly tort relating to business. After learning about some aspects of the tort, it is important to understand tortuous liability, the tort of negligence and its nature of liability as well as its elements. With application the tortuous liability and liability in negligence in real life case, it helps understand clearly about tort so that can avoid making common negligent mistakes. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort 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 AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Discuss the extent to which discrimination is prohibited under English and Welsh law (25 ...

    5 star(s)

    The act also protects progressive illnesses that might affect the person later on in life. BUT Discrimination can be justified with disability unlike the others e.g. placing a person within a job which isn't suitable to them. Lastly there is age discrimination which is protected by the Employment Equality (age)

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    The element, which is known as 'causation in fact' and if 'but for' the defendants negligent conduct the damage would not have happened then the negligence is the cause of the damage. This is causation in law and liability may still be avoided if the defendant can show that the

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Questions related to the tort of negligence.

    3 star(s)

    This case again relates to negligence (defined above), and the principle of contributory negligence. Contributory negligence is where a plaintiff is in part the cause of his/her own injury/ies, then the blame is shared, on a percentage basis, and s/he receives less compensation than s/he normally would have from the defendant had s/he not been contributorily negligent.

  2. Consider the meaning and importance of fault-based liability in English law

    The reasoning behind these categories can be understood using Oatley. The defendant here was suffering from severe postnatal depression when she killed her 11-day-old baby by swinging her head against the stairs. Although she was of sound mind this act would have been given a very severe punishment, probably a

  1. Intoxication – The Legal Viewpoint.

    of drink or drugs having obliterated the capacity of the perpetrator to know what he was doing. The Caldwell test is strictly applicable only to criminal damage, however, and voluntary intoxication does not automatically lead to a finding of subjective recklessness for other offences.

  2. What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible ...

    Baroness Wootton agrees on this point (along with may other points made by Lord Diplock) by saying "If the law says that certain things are not to be done, it is illogical to confine this prohibition to occasions on which they are done from malice aforethought: for at least the

  1. The case of Spartan Steel v Martin (1972 All ER 557) illustrates that the ...

    In the case of Hedley Byrne v Heller, the claimants were asked by a company, Easipower to buy some advertising space for them. Hedley then contacted Heller, who was Easipower?s bankers to provide them with a credit reference. On both occasions, they were given favourable references ?but with a disclaimer.

  2. Occupiers Liability Act Case Study - Consider the theme parks potential liability in tort ...

    The defendants was said to be liable as they had the legal authority to control the premise and had been negligent in doing so. As Pierre cuts his arm badly on the sharp edge of the metal sheet on the Mad Maxx ride, he is said to have incurred physical

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