Case Analysis Of Tort Law

As Judge Learned Hand said, “The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right...”. Tort law is about compensation for the damage suffered. Nevertheless, it is also about balancing freedom and protection and there are two main ways to balance it. First of all, there is fault liability, which asks a question, did someone exercise a sufficient care. On the other hand, there is strict liability, in which, even though someone exercised sufficient care, can still be liable. Nevertheless, each jurisdiction tackles this problem in a different way. For the purpose of this paper, two jurisdictions which are most distinctive will be chosen, and that is French and English jurisdiction. In line with that, English law stems

In England, there are no specific statutory torts, that deal with this question. Moreover, this case, cannot fall under intentional torts. Therefore, this question is dealt, under the tort of negligence, but the higher standard of care is required, which was proved in case Nettleship v. Weston. What this means, is that a driver is compared to a “great driver”/ “excellent driver”. There are four requirements that need to be fulfiled in order for a defendant to be negligent. There needs to be 1.) Duty of Care, 2.) Breach, 3.) Causation and 4.) Damage. Firstly, Bob as a driver had a high duty of care to take to be cautious towards the other drivers on the road. Therefore, the first criteria is fulfilled. Nevertheless, the question, was there a breach of the duty of care, cannot be answered affirmatively, because, as seen from the facts of the case, Bob did not act negligently. Therefore, It is assumed, that he took good care of balancing risk and precautionary measures that he needed to take, and that he acted, with an expected skill and knowledge. Therefore, second criteria is not fulfilled. Question of causation, would be probably established, as Bob at least contributed to the collision. Moreover, there was damage, namely physical injury. As a conclusion, Tom cannot claim damages from