Negligence Case Study

2378 Words5 Pages

Review the scenario below. Consider the legal principles influencing the likelihood of any successful action against Steve in negligence. Daria and her lover, Tom, were crossing the road on a pedestrian crossing when Tom was hit and killed by a car being negligently driven by Steve. The car missed Daria by inches. Since the incident Daria has had frequent nightmares and has been unable to return to work. Harry, a policeman patrolling the area, witnessed the incident and went to try to help Tom, but quickly realised that Tom was already dead. This was Harry’s first day back at work following six months recovering from psychiatric illness caused by the distressing nature of his job. As a result of seeing Tom’s injuries Harry has now suffered a return of the psychiatric damage which now appears permanent. Samira, a civilian worker in police traffic control, was watching a TV monitor which showed the road as the incident occurred. Samira recognised Tom as her husband whom she had not seen since the day, six months before, when he had left her and gone to live with Daria. Samira had always believed that, one day, he would return to her. She has suffered post traumatic stress disorder since the incident. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In our given scenario we are asked to discuss legal principles influencing the likelihood of any successful action against Steve in the grounds of negligence. Steve’s negligent driving caused a series of events that caused losses to the other people presented in the scenario and they take actions against Steve in the grounds of negligence. At first we must understand what negligence is. The tort of negligence provides the potenti... ... middle of paper ... ...rameters and all the aspects of the law that appear in our given scenario we can safely say that any claim that is being made by Tom’s representative by Daria and Samira on the grounds of negligence – breach of duty of care and psychiatric injury would be successful and that even though Harry suffered psychiatric injury his claim won’t be successful since he doesn’t fulfill the necessary parameters in order to make a successful claim. Bibliography Neal Geach, Question & Answer Tort Law, Pearson Law of Tort, Module Handout. Cases Frances Quinn, Tort Law, Pearson, first edition, pp 34-35 Caparo v Dickman (1990) 2 A.C. 605 Page v Smith [1996] 1 A.C. 155 Bourhill v Young [1943] A.C. 92 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 A.C. 310 Hinz v Berry [1970] 1 All E.R. 1084 White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 A.C.455

Open Document