• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13

Common law - Tort

Extracts from this document...


Table of Contents 1. Claim 1: 2 2. Claim 2: 4 a. Nancy's case: 4 b. Nancy's daughter's case: 5 c. Connor's case 6 d. After Connor's fallen. 7 e. 15-year-old girl and 14-year-old-boy 8 3. Claim 3: 9 a. The customer: 9 b. Cynthia 10 4. Claim 4: 11 References 13 1. Claim 1: Issues: Advice for John and Joe as to the sort of action, if any, which they may respectively bring and against whom, if anyone, the action will lie. Rules: - "In some torts it is necessary to establish both wrong and loss resulting from it; this is the rule in the tort of negligence" (BPP Professional Education, 2004, pg 112). - "When there is a sequence of physical cause and effect without human intervention, the ultimate loss is too remote (so that the damage cannot recover for it) unless it could have been reasonably foreseen that some loss of that kind might occur as a consequence of the wrong". (BPP Professional Education, 2004, pg.114). - Sale of Goods Act 1979: merchantable quality: fit for the purpose for which goods of that description are commonly bought as is reasonable to expect. - 4 steps to prove negligence: 1. The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff 2. The defendant breaches this duty 3. The plaintiff suffered damage(injury) as a direct result of the defendant's breach 4. The defendant did not have a defense Application: John and Joe were on holiday together and had rented a caravan at Nurdsley Bay. The weather was poor and John had been complaining that he could not sleep at night because of the cold. Joe, being a generous sort of person, bought a hot water bottle from a local shop and gave it to John, refusing any payment from John for it. That night the hot-water bottle burst and John was badly scalded. ...read more.


However a warning is not a sufficient precaution in some cases. Application: Talbot wrote out a sign in a very large bright letters which said that 'Warning- slippery floor. Do not enter" and fixed it to the sign of the workshop. He took a reasonable care to safety of customer by giving warnings. According to occupier's liability, he gave a precaution which noticed the customer that the floor was slippery, so he did not have liability for the damages of visitors. Connor, a customer with very poor eyesight, missed the sign, strode in, slipped and broke his leg. The fact that the warning was written in a very large but bright letter, in the side of workshop entrance. It was hard for customer to see, especially poor eyesight people- Connor, so this warning was not enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe. Thus, Talbot breached duty of care to customer, this brought damages to Connor of breaking his leg. There were no defenses for Talbot. Conclusion: Although Talbot takes a reasonable care to customer, he still has liability in breaching duty of care for safety of customer using strict liability. Talbot should close the shop to scrub it carefully to make sure that the floor is not slippery. d. After Connor's fallen. Issues: Explain whether the Talbot would be liable for the damage Rules: Novus actus interveniens : "if the sequence of cause and effect includes a new act( called a novus actus interveniens) of a third party or of the claimant, it may terminate the defendant's liability at that point: further consequences are too remote and he is not required to pay compensation for them" ( BPP Professional Education, 2004, pg.113) Applications: Connor screamed loudly after his fall. This caused a customer who was filling his tank at the self-serve pump to spin round involuntarily and sprayed petrol into the eyes of another customer, who ran in shock down the driveway of Talbot's garage. ...read more.


He recommended her to invest all of her money in a mining company Lemonade Ltd. She was reluctant to invest in a mining company due to its high risks but George told her "I have fully investigated this Company and it is totally profitable. I have been in this business for many years and I am the best in my job. Follow my advice and you shall double your money in no time at all". He affirmed that he was the best adviser, and if May did not follow his advice, it would be waste though May was concerned about the high risks of this Company. May followed the advice and bought �60,000 shares in Lemonade Ltd at �3 a share (see the case Hedley Byrne Co Ltd vs Heller and Partners Ltd 1963). May discovered that the Company had been in financial trouble over 12 months and this fact was very well-known in the financial market and was common knowledge to many investment advisors. It was reasonable foreseeable that the wrong statement in the advice would make May suffer loss. Thus George breached the duty of care to May through giving wrong advices. After only two months the share value dropped to 2 cents and the Company went into liquidation. This loss was the direct result from wrong advices of George, and May relied on the advice. Also there was no defense for George. Conclusion: This is negligence mis-statement because May relies on expert's advice of George, and because of his negligence, she suffered loss, so May can claim George for loss investment in Lemonade Ltd. She also paid �600 to George for his professional advice. There was a contract between May and George. May also is able to claim George for giving wrong advice, and she can claim for �600 payment for advice. But this is more profitable for her if she claim according to law of tort. She can take back all or some money from the loss in investment. ...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. concurrent liability(TM) in tort and contract.

    Terms of contract are now imposed upon the parties by numerous statutes, quite independently of any 'agreement' and, the notion of true agreement has long been discredited in many contractual situations, since few individual consumers have real bargaining power. Moreover it is possible for parties in contract to arrive at agreement to vary tortious duties which the law imposes.

  2. Duty of Care.

    - An occupier's control of land may give rise to an affirmative duty in relation to the behavior of visitors Cunningham v Reading Football Club Ltd [1992] The defendants were held liable for injuries inflicted by football hooligans who broke pieces of concrete off the structure of the premises for use as missiles.

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

    by the act of a stranger over whom the defendant has no control, this will be a defence". (Cooke 267) A case that shows this is Perry v. Kendricks Transport Ltd (1956), in this case it was held that the defendants were not liable as a stranger, who they had no control over, caused the explosion.

  2. Defamation Law

    Libel being written was of a more permanent nature and the fact that the defamer to the trouble to put in down in writing was indicative of greater degree of malice; and was distinguished from slander which being oral was transient and hence not capable of causing as much harm

  1. Assisting a trustee's breach of fiduciary duty.

    was aware that what he was doing went contravened the standards of honesty held by ordinary and reasonably people (Stafford, 2002). Lord Millett remarked that the majority view creates an unfortunate anomaly when compared with the tort of inducement of breach of contract, where a dishonest state of mind is

  2. LLB CASE ANALYSIS (Law of Contract and Law of Tort)

    Simmons v British Steel plc[9] (hereafter referred to as Simmons), may be considered to give clarity to the controversy regarding the two tests of remoteness of damage. The case itself regards the pursuer who had an accident at work, which resulted in an injury to the head, a flare up of a previous skin condition and depression.

  1. Discuss the justification for vicarious liability and whether the recent developments in case law ...

    The crane and the crane driver had been leant to a firm of stevedores. The stevedores had immediate control over the relevant operation which the crane was performing, but had no power to direct how the crane driver should control the crane.

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

    The case of Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc[36] only reinforced this, making it virtually impossible for plaintiffs to have any claim, if sufficient proof is not provided of the falsity of the statement. In UK, the meaning of ?defamatory? rests on Lord Atkin?s test, and the interpretation held in Byrne

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