• 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
  14. 14
  15. 15
  16. 16
  17. 17
  18. 18
  19. 19

Tort Law Problem Case. The Plaintiff (widow of the deceased) namely Mrs Fogg is alleging, inter alia[1] that the SimpleFlight.Com and Passepartout NHS Trust has caused the death of Mr Fogg and that the defendants are liable of negligence and trespass to t

Extracts from this document...


Fogg v SimpleFlight.Com Ltd & Fogg v PAssepartout NHS Trust Judgement 5 November 2011 The Plaintiff (widow of the deceased) namely Mrs Fogg is alleging, inter alia1 that the SimpleFlight.Com and Passepartout NHS Trust has caused the death of Mr Fogg and that the defendants are liable of negligence and trespass to the person. My legitimate concern is to acknowledge the involvement of the third party namely 80 Day Tour Travel which also plays a significant role in this case. In establishing negligence I shall examine all the elements of liability2 of SimpleFlight.Com and Passepartout NHS Trust to Mr Fogg. Negligence involves duty of care3, Breach of the duty of care4, causation5, demage6 and remote7. To establish the breach of the duty of care I shall consider the factors and standard reasonableness as defined in the case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856)8 "Negligence is the omission to do something, which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something, which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The standard demanded is thus not of perfection but of reasonableness. It is an objective standard taking no account of the defendant's incompetence - he may do the best he can and still be found negligent" 9 To ascertain if Mr Fogg was injured as the result of 80 Day Tour Travel I shall consider did they acted negligence in fulfilling their duty of care towards their passenger. Negligence is first defined in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson10 where Lord Atkins laid down famous neighbour principal ''that you owe a duty to whoever is your neighbour and your neighbour in law is someone closely and directly affected by your acts''11 the primary factor of negligence is the legal duty of care. The case of Caparo v Dickman12 replaced the two stage test developed in Anns case13. ...read more.


if he did not use ordinary skill and care in his own conduct with regard to those circumstances he would cause danger or injury to the person or property of the other, a duty arises to use ordinary skill to avoid such danger".45 It was shown in Bolam46 and Jones v Fay47 case once the duty of care is breached the claimant is capable to be compensated. Mr Fogg complained upon landing at the London airport and visited the local hospital, under Passepartout NHS Trust, where the doctor advised him that there was nothing to worry about and that the pain would subside in a couple of days. I see unprofessional attitude feedback from the doctor by looking at the expert medical evidence which signifies DVT. The doctor was aware that Mr Fogg has just landed and had travelled the doctor should have called for X-ray or MRI scans. With the help of direction of McNair J. Bolam-Bolitho48 test it proves the breach of duty of care and negligence by the doctor when the doctor conducts the inspection. Whereas Mr Fogg was under the anaesthetic therefore was unable to consent, but the doctor without Mr Fogg`s consent, made couple of incisions with a scalpel in the area of the blood clot and failed to locate the blood clot. Mr Fogg agreed for the anaesthetics it does not mean he agreed for incisions. In the case of Paula Thomas 49 the medical doctor negligently caused grievance to the claimant because of the doctor's incorrect observation. It also suggests unreasonable medical practice because expert evidence shows that blood clot can be located by X-ray and MRI scans therefore the doctor did not apply proper surgical procedure, Hutchinson50 the doctor failed to diagnose in the hospital. In the case Alice Mary v John Aymard 51 doctor failed to give proper advice. Consent must be informed and voluntary, and the person must be capable to decide52. ...read more.


but recognised & inadequately reasonably dealt covered with Application of Poor or no Weak but Reasonable Good application Excellent application Relevant law/ attempt at satisfactory application of law of law to all issues of law to all issues Problem application application of law to main issues including those not including analysis solving to main issues covered by of alternative preceden t outcomes Research & Very poor weak referencing Adequate Clear referencing Excellent referencing & Referencing referencing & Evidence of basic referencing Evidence of research in all areas &use of legal No evidence research only Evidence of further detailed research terminology of further research in some areas research Knowledge & Understanding Explanation of Insufficient Some basic Clear statement Clear statement Excellent statement of Relevant law detail on detail on relevant of most of of all relevant law all relevant law relevant statute/ statute/cases relevant statute cases /cases Transferable/ Key Skills Written Inadequate Adequate but Reasonable Good in all Excellent in all communication Spelling &/or significant errors spelling/grammar respects respects Grammar in spelling/grammar & structure Poor structure Structure needs Improvement Submission date & time. 11 PM to Moodle, Friday 30th March 2011. Assignment to be submitted electronically onto the Law of Tort section of the Moodle site. Please refer to Moodle site for a student guide on how to submit via Moodle. Please attach the assignment cover / submission sheet to the front of your assignment before submitting the work. The cover sheet is available on Moodle. The Law team strongly recommend that you do not leave submission of the assignment until the very last minute. You might experience technical problems with your computer. Last minute submission of your work is at your own risk. Any late submission will be subject to deduction of marks under the University regulations. Word limit; 2500 WORDS absolute maximum (no 10% flexibility). Word process in Times New Roman size 14 and double line space. As you are writing a judgment it would be appropriate to write in the first person. ...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. Marked by a teacher

    Law of Tort Assignment.

    5 star(s)

    Foreseeability was not necessarily the test where duty of care existed.' 9 The House of Lords held that the 'police owed no duty of care to individual members of the public who may suffer injury as a result of the failure to identify and apprehend unknown criminals.'

  2. Consider what is meant by concurrent liability in tort and contract. Using examples from ...

    IV, r. 2 of The Hague Rules that a cause of the loss was a peril of the sea; (2) the crack in the portside shell plating was not of itself sufficient to cause the vessel to founder: the vessel was lost due to the corroded bulkhead between lower holds 2 and 3 giving way.

  1. Duty of Care.

    The defendant was held liable as he was in control insofar as he had created a foreseeable danger, which could be sparked off by an innocent event. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] The claimant was a professional boxer. He suffered brain damage during on of the matches.

  2. Liability In Negligence Problem case. Advise Greenwichshire Police whether they owe a duty ...

    omission , as illustrated in in Rigby V Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [1985]11. However, the situation changes when the question is one of liability for harm arising from the investigation and suppression of crime. These concerns with liability arising from criminal control.

  1. Tort Problem Question Answer

    I think that under the duty of reasonable care analysis, Defendant 2 acted with the care of an ordinary and prudent person under the circumstances of an emergency. Even so, the defence could take up the fact that the Claimant had crossed the road without looking and hence contributed to the events that led to his injuries.

  2. Tort Law - Negligence

    Based on the balance of probabilities W owns a duty of care to J based on the relationship of geographical proximity he is mostly likely to receive compensation for the injury. If no duty of care is owed then both J's claims cannot be taken into considerations.

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

    So "If the damage is due more to the claimants property than the defendants conduct then no nuisance is committed". The defences that Do-It Ltd may argue is coming to the nuisance, although this is not a defence, they could argue it as in the case of Miller v.

  2. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002].

    Unfortunately, it is easier to identify the principle, which the majority House of Lords applied, and their reasons for applying it, than to find clear guidance on the scope of the principle. The exceptional principle applied: the "McGhee principle" The House of Lords accepted in Fairchild that in a negligence

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