Case Study Of Mike's Law

When there is a breach of duty, to look after your neighbour, the injured plaintiffs are likely to launch a claim for damages, in order to restore themselves back to the position they were in prior to the tort. Within the scenario, there appears to be several breaches. Each breach will be discussed in terms of what can be claimed and how successful each of the four claims are.

Mike had died as a result of Bob’s negligence, when he dropped the steel pole on him. Due to this, Mike’s estate will be seeking damages from Dale Cooper, under the grounds of employers liability and vicarious liability for Mike’s death. It also appears that Bob and Laura are claiming damages as a result of them suffering from PTSD because of the events that occurred

Mike’s estate now seeks to claim an award of damages from Bob. It is probable that the damages asked for would be too great to compensate Mike’s estate. Due to this, his estate will be suing Dale Cooper Construction Company because of their greater level of solvency. Dale Cooper as Bob’s employer may be held liable under employers liability due to the elements that evolved from Wilsons & Clyde Coal (1938). Even though four key elements were noted from this case only one applies for Mike’s estate. This is the duty to provide competent staff as colleagues. “An employer owes his employees a duty to ensure that they employ competent colleagues, including effective supervision (which is also a principle developed from the stated case) and training.” It is evident from the above scenario that Dale Cooper, had not employed competent staff and supervision. The reason for this is that, it would have been noticeable to see someone who had been “drinking heavily the night before.” A reasonable and competent person would not have allowed Bob to have manned and operated the cranes responsible for building the warehouse. Judging from the text, it is clear to say that competent staff and supervision was not employed for the construction of the warehouse. This can be exhibited from the fact that Bob had drank heavily the night before he knew he had work and was also irresponsible as he had come into work late that day (probably hungover). There should have also been a supervisor or manager to take note of Bob’s lateness as well as his physical and mental capability to operate the crane. However, this is only hypothetical considering it has not been mentioned in the scenario. As this is a common law duty, that is “to ensure that reasonable care is taken” “the employer cannot escape liability themselves simply by demonstrating that they had acted reasonably” and