Smolden Vs Whitworth Case Analysis

To be able to successfully discuss the legal requirements needed to succeed in a negligence action we first to need to understand what is needed for something to be considered negligent and what you aim to succeed in trying to sue for it. For a successful negligence claim to be made there needs to be four elements present: duty of care, breach of a duty of care, causation, and damage. When suing for negligence you are usually seeking for compensation this can come in two forms. Firstly, it could be quantifiable loss (earnings) or unquantifiable loss (ability to play sport). In this essay, I will discuss the four elements needed and identify if they link to our scenario above.

Duty of care, is the idea that there is a responsibility from one

Although, the case of Smolden V Whitworth (1996) is related to codes of practice and conduct it can be linked to the scenario given. The Smolden V Whitworth case involved a rugby player who broke his neck when competing in a scrum. The player sued the referee and it was successful as he hadn’t followed code of practice (Smolden V Whitworth, 1996). We can link this to scenario given in multiple ways. Firstly, let’s look at it from the side of ES Ltd. Miss Fortune should argue that ES Ltd did not choose adequately when deciding to hire RW Ltd for the work that needed to be carried. They were aware of the poor safety record, that if we follow the rules of the reasonable man, RW Ltd did not as a company possess the skills of a reasonably competent person, they put aside the most important factor when carrying out any kind of renovation (health and safety) for price. They were themselves willing to fall below standard to benefit financially. More closely linked to Smolden V Whitworth we can now discuss the idea of not following set codes (requirements) and the consequence of this action. RW Ltd should have followed the instructions of ‘The Regulations require employers to ensure that safety signs are provided (or are in place) and maintained in circumstances where there

To aid us with this it is best to draw on the facts of the Hughes V Lord Advocate (1963), this case involved a telecommunications company who left a manhole unattended with a live lantern switched on. Two children were burnt and the case was held foreseeable (Hughes V Lord Advocate, 1963). This links to our case as the renovations where left by Miss Take unfinished, so therefore we can assume that there was always the chance that the sign could fall, so actually this damage is reasonably