Summative Assignment Part A Tort of Negligence
This essay will look at whether or not liability would be justified in the following three cases. It will also look at cases in law which could justify the outcome to the cases. This essay also looks and statues which are relevant to the cases in this essay
In the first case Daniel was known to be less than competent at driving a fork lift which resulted in the death of Harold so in this this case it is most likely that the employer would be liable because of the three part test that is Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) A.C 562 the first part of the test is duty of care owed to him by the defendant ,both the employer and Daniel broke the duty of care because Daniel should have had taken reasonable care not to injure your neighbour but the employer has breached the duty of care under the Health and Safety at work Act 1974 section 2 as the employer as to ensure as is reasonably practicable ,the health and safety and welfare at work to all employers so the employer breeched this by putting less than competent employee on a fork lift there for the employer as vicarious liability. And the third part of the three-part test is was there damaged caused by the breech which in this instance there is as Harold was killed. We can look at the case Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co. Ltd v English  3 All ER 628 were It was held by the House of Lords that (1) the employers were not absolved from their duty to take due care in the provision of a reasonably safe system of working by the appointment of a competent person to perform that duty. Although the employers might, and in some events were bound to, appoint someone as their agent in the discharge of their duty, the employers remained responsible. (2) the d...
... middle of paper ...
...home and call their own doctors. One of the men died some hours later. The post mortem showed arsenic poisoning which was a rare cause of death.
It was held, that on the 'but for ' test, even if the deceased had been examined and admitted for treatment, there was little or no chance that the only effective antidote would have been administered to him in time. Although the hospital had been negligent, because it was more likely than not that he would have died anyway, the negligence was not the cause of death. So this case is similar as they cannot be certain if Carlos had been examined he would of still been alive so the hospital was negligent but was not the cause of death.
This essay I looked at three cases to see if there was a likely or unlikely outcome of liability by looking at the cases using varies case in laws and statues to see if there was a fair outcome
Need Writing Help?
Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.Check your paper »
- Tort of negligence QUESTION 1 ISSUE: Will Kim be successful in suing the Ipswich council. RULE: Under tort of negligence, in order to be successful, claim must require the following properties as per Law in Commerce (5th edition) Sweeney, B., O’Reilly, J. and Coleman, A. PRIVITY OF CONTRACT: According to law, suit can only be filed by the contracting parties. Third party (i.e. party not a part of contract) cannot file a suit except in certain specified situations such as in case of principal agency relationship.... [tags: Tort, Law, Negligence, Contract]
1327 words (3.8 pages)
- In this essay we are able to identify the Law of tort and present a case from New Zealand covering tort of negligence and vicarious liability. The word ‘tort’ is derived from the Latin term tortem to twist and implies conduct which is twisted or tortious. It now means a breach of some duty independent of contract giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which compensation is recoverable. A Tort is a species of civil injury or wrong no civil injury is to be classed as a tort unless the appropriate remedy for it is an action for damages.... [tags: Tort, Tort law, Negligence, Strict liability]
909 words (2.6 pages)
- Issue To determine based on the case facts, if Alma can sue Norma for negligence based on tort law or not. Rule To establish negligence, it is imperative that three main conditions are to be satisfied. Firstly, it needs to be proved that the defendant had a duty to care directed towards the plaintiff. Secondly, there needs to be a breach of this duty due to the negligent conduct of the defendant. Thirdly, the plaintiff should have suffered harm due to the duty to care being breached by the defendant (Lindgren, 2011).... [tags: Negligence, Tort, Tort law, Duty of care]
1035 words (3 pages)
- Deceit is purposeful lying that causes a loss for the claimant or gain for the defendant. Conversely, a negligent misstatement is an incorrect, careless statement that causes loss for the claimant, in which the defendant acts on unreasonable grounds. In order to establish a negligent misstatement, the misstatement must fulfil the requirements for negligence. The tort of negligence involves three components: duty of care, breach of duty, and damages. Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) is the origin of the tort of negligence in modern English law.... [tags: Tort, Tort law, Duty of care, Negligence]
1201 words (3.4 pages)
- ‘Assumption of responsibility as the basis of liability for omissions in the tort of negligence is unfair’. Critically discuss by reference to one, or more, of the following theories of Tort law: deterrence, corrective justice, and distributive justice. In English law, there is no duty of the courts to impose liability for an omission or failure to act, despite the fact that there are compelling moral judgments for prevention of harm to another. The tort of negligence signifies that a person who causes damage by carelessness to others may be held liable to pay compensation.... [tags: Tort, Negligence, Duty of care, Contract]
1077 words (3.1 pages)
- “The categories of negligence are never closed”. [Lord Macmillan in Donoghue v. Stevenson- (1932)] The tort of negligence is a relatively recent phenomenon, which has come to become the most dynamic and rapidly changing areas of liability in modern law. Lord Macmillan’s assertion that “ the categories of negligence are never closed” suggests how courts possess the power to expand the area of liability by bringing in new duty situations as a result of new set of facts coming is everyday.... [tags: Tort Law]
876 words (2.5 pages)
- There are three elements that must be present for an act or omission to be negligent; (1) The defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff; (2) The defendant breached the duty of care by an act or omission; (3) The plaintiff must suffer damage as a result - be it physical, emotional or financial. The court might decide that Freddy (the plaintiff) was owed a duty of care by Elvis (the defendant) if they find that what happened to Freddy was in the realm of reasonable forseeability - any harm that could be caused to a 'neighbour' by Elvis' actions that he could reasonably have expected to happen.... [tags: Tort Law]
1121 words (3.2 pages)
- Tort of negligence is a civil wrong when a party unintentionally cause harm to another party. The elements of negligence are a legal duty of care, breach of that duty and damage resulted from that breach. The underlying principle of the concept of duty is the neighbour principle which is a regulation to love our neighbours and must not injure them. Thus, one has to take reasonable care of their own actions to avoid carelessness that could foreseeably harm others. Duty of care also can only be established when both parties are proximate to each another and the circumstances of the case is justifiable to impose liability.... [tags: Tort law, Tort, Duty of care, Reasonable person]
1560 words (4.5 pages)
- Issue: Are the agents G Shepherd & Co. and the loose asbestos insulation assessor, Basil, liable in negligence for harm that has occurred to Roland and Belle’s family. Relevant Rules or law: The Tort of Negligence: The Negligence is the failure for someone to take reasonable care to prevent foreseeable injury, loss or damage to other people. It also contains both intended and unintended acts and omission. The Negligence action can only be liable to the plaintiff by counting the following three elements which are based on the balance of probabilities under common law and statute : 1 Duty of care The duty of care exists in the relevant situation where risk of harm or injury to plaintiffs was ‘... [tags: Tort, Tort law, Negligence, Duty of care]
1119 words (3.2 pages)
- A number of aspects of liability rise from this case study and each one will be discussed. With regards to the headaches suffered by Karl, it is necessary to look at private nuisance. Negligence is disregarded as it is assumed from the details in the case study that the headaches suffered are not so serious as to cause personal injury, it is just described as ‘mere discomfort’. Such a claim under the law of nuisance requires three factors to be fulfilled. The first being a continuous interference.... [tags: Tort Law]
1310 words (3.7 pages)