Tort In Law Case Study

- The parties involved are Jonathan and the Ambulance Service. The claimants involved are; Albert, George and Victor in question. Jonathan v Albert and George
The claimants are Albert and George, which will be suing Jonathan in the tort of negligence for personal injury/damages. A tort in law is a civil wrong which causes unfair harm. The requirements for tort of negligence was stated by Lord Wright in Lochgelly v McMullan . Negligence is considered as a breach of a legal duty to take care, with the result that the damage is caused to the claimant . Albert and George would need to prove that Jonathan owed them a duty of care which included their deceased friend Victor, and then breached that duty of care therefore causing damage to the

This test is significantly relevant as it applies to cases that involve personal injury and/or damage to property. To establish whether or not Jonathan owes a duty of care and on what basis, the courts need to apply three essential questions portrayed by the legal principle in the Caparo test. Firstly, whether or not the damage was reasonably foreseeable. Secondly, whether there was a relationship of proximity between Jonathan and the claimants. Lastly, was it fair, just and reasonable to impose a

The authority of Kent v Griffiths which concerned the London Ambulance Service’s had failed to promptly respond to a call which resulted in the patient suffering. It was argued by the ambulance services that they owed no duty of care on the authority of Capital and Counties . However, it was held that the nature of the ambulance service differed in comparison to police/fire brigade services, therefore NHS hospitals had a clear duty of care towards individual patients equally. In accordance to this case, a duty of care was owed to all casualties including Victor based on the nature of their