Legal Studies and Tort Law

669 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Tort law occupiers liability essay

Legal studies is branched into many different sectors. One of the fundamental legal subjects is tort law. Tort law is known as the law that corrects civil wrongs. There are many different kinds of torts including tort of trespass, negligence and torts to land. Tort victims are entitled to claiming remedies, damages and injunctions. This essay will examine a case where the issues in hand are mainly negligence and occupier’s liability.

Facts of the case:
A family picnicking in a remote and deserted property owned by the government suffer the loss of their daughter when she falls into a well. The well was drilled by a licensed farmer who was asked to stop the work soon after.

Who is responsible and liable for the death of the 6 years old girl? And what are the actions her family can take in order to be compensated? These are all questions which are going to be answered according to the case in hand.

To begin with Sir Percy Winfield suggested that someone would commit the tort of negligence if he breached a legal duty to take care by an inadvertent act or omission. ( Winfield 1926, 184) It focuses more on what one did or didn’t do rather than the harm caused. To establish duty of care one must prove breach of duty causing damage, that way the defendant will be considered liable. There are many tests to exhibit breach of duty including The Heaven v Pender test (1883) or The Caparo test (1990). There are 3 things which one should prove: reasonable foresight of the danger, proximity and fairness. In our case the parents breached their duty of care by leaving their child alone to wander in a deserted land without adult supervision. The government on the other hand, should have foreseen the danger when allowing the farmer to drill ...

... middle of paper ...

...law. First, the government is considered liable because it did not supervise nor warn people against the danger. Secondly, the farmer is liable because he again recklessly covered the well not taking into consideration the danger he has created which any reasonable person would have foreseen.

In conclusion, both the government and the farmer are responsible and liable for the death of the girl. That is because tort law determines what legal rights one has against other people and corrects it. Negligence is a huge sector of tort law and most people tend to seek damages which includes money. We all have duties to certain people and things, therefore one should always be aware of his actions and rights. The simplest wrong can put a person a bad situation. However, the law will always be there to protect one’s rights. Thus, everyone should be aware of their rights.

Show More
Related

  • Mamo V Surace Case Study

    1105 Words  | 3 Pages

    It was found in the respondents submissions that a duty of care was necessary. The issue of negligence he believed was unsustainable as the risks were minimal and it was not unusual to take one’s eyes off the road. Causation was not satisfied as the judge concluded that the respondent would not have had enough time in any circumstance to avoid a collision with the cow.

    Read More

  • Norton Vs Argonaut Insurance Case Summary

    1434 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the case of Norton vs Argonaut Insurance Company there are many factors which impacted the court’s ruling as to the parties who were responsible resultant wrongful death of the infant Robyn Bernice Norton. The nurses, doctors(independent contractors) and the the hospital though not formally charged

    Read More

  • Mamo V Surace Case Summary

    1300 Words  | 3 Pages

    The appellant, Jesse Mamo, was a passenger in a vehicle driven by the respondent, Steven Surace. Whilst the respondent looked down to adjust the radio, a cow wandered on to the road, colliding with the vehicle . The appellant alleged that the respondent failed to use high beam or maintain a proper lookout. The respondent denied liability and pleaded contributory negligence. At trial, the Judge held that breach of duty of care had not transpired, as it was an unforeseeable risk causing an unavoidable accident, as the cow appeared too close to react. The Judge argued that the respondent acted appropriately toward ‘foreseeable risks”, which the cow was not part of.

    Read More

  • Tort Case Study In Common Law

    982 Words  | 2 Pages

    The engineer breached the duty of care through failing his/her duty to warn by providing insufficient warning on the limitation of the application. His/her software application caused the structural firm to designed a defective bridge and was the direct cause of many deaths. The junior engineer should be held liable for his/her product due to the principle known as product liability. This is evident in the case study because deaths and injuries due to defective product as a result of the software were foreseeable. Looking at the 1971 case of Lambert v. Lastoplex Chemicals Co. Limited et al., the manufacturers must not only instruct the user how to properly use the products but also warn the user the consequences of misuse []. This precedent case proves that the engineer failed to warn the structural firm of the limitation of the application as well as failed to warn the consequences of using the application beyond its capabilities. However, the information technology firm may be held vicariously liable for the mistake of the junior engineer as he/she developed the software application during his/her employment. The reason being the employer generally has deeper pocket than the employee [] and the collapse was a result of the junior engineer developing the application under the authority of the employer. Thus, the junior engineer is one of the tortfeasor to which the information firm maybe vicariously liable for his/her

    Read More

  • Stone And Ruffell Case Analysis

    1037 Words  | 3 Pages

    It is possible to hold that Stone and Dobinson caused the victims death because there was a legal duty on the Defendants(D) to care for the deceased(V), which they accepted. Given that they had voluntarily undertaken responsibility of the provision of V’s basic needs and that V occupied a room in the house (there was also some indication that the family relationship between V and one of the defendants had also contributed to the duty), once helplessness supervened The victim was dependant and reasonably relied upon stone and Dobinson, and in the absence of any steps to dissociate themselves from responsibility by placing her in the care of others (although there are some signs that they made attempts to do this), It is this reliance that generates

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Contributory Negligence

    1770 Words  | 4 Pages

    This act is applicable where damages were caused partly by the fault of both parties. The court has power to apportion damages only when fault occurred. Fault of defendant means negligence, breach of statutory duty or other act or omission which gives rise to liability in tort. Fault of plaintiff means an act or omission which give rise to defence of contributory negligence.

    Read More

  • Case Study: Susan Is Shopping In A Supermarket

    1666 Words  | 4 Pages

    On the 1st of October in the year 2017, the defendant, in this case, the supermarket was found liable for the case Susan injury in the supermarket's premises. The hip injury on Susan’s hip which was a result of the slipping over a squashed banana. The presence of the squashed banana in the premises was an outright sign of negligence and recklessness by the supermarket's staff. (Damage law)

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Negligence

    887 Words  | 2 Pages

    George failed to comply with the duty of care, causing his car to roll downhill. According to the authors, negligence occurs when someone suffers an injury or damage to property because of a party’s failure to live up to a required duty of care (Mayer, Warner, Siedel, & Lieberman, 2014, p. 161). Negligence is an unintentional tort that the tortfeasor either wishes to bring consequences of the act or thinks that they will occur (Mayer et al,. 2014, p. 161). For George to be liable for negligence, I will explain the following elements.

    Read More

  • Intentional Tort

    1806 Words  | 4 Pages

    This essay focuses on intentional tort, which includes trespass to person consisting of battery, assault and false imprisonment, which is actionable per se. It also examines protection from harassment act. The essay commences with a brief description of assault, battery and false imprisonment. It goes further advising the concerned parties on the right to claim they have in tort law and the development of the law over the years, with the aid of case law, principles and statutes.

    Read More

  • The Tort of Negligence

    1121 Words  | 3 Pages

    did owe a duty of care to Mrs. Donoghue, in that it was up to them to...

    Read More

  • Negligence Case Study

    935 Words  | 2 Pages

    Negligence, as defined in Pearson’s Business Law in Canada, is an unintentional careless act or omission that causes injury to another. Negligence consists of four parts, of which the plaintiff has to prove to be able to have a successful lawsuit and potentially obtain compensation. First there is a duty of care: Who is one responsible for? Secondly there is breach of standard of care: What did the defendant do that was careless? Thirdly there is causation: Did the alleged careless act actually cause the harm? Fourthly there is damage: Did the plaintiff suffer a compensable type of harm as a result of the alleged negligent act? Therefore, the cause of action for Helen Happy’s lawsuit will be negligence, and she will be suing the warden of the Peace River Correctional Centre, attributable to vicarious liability. As well as, there will be a partial defense (shared blame) between the warden and the two employees, Ike Inkster and Melvin Melrose; whom where driving the standard Correction’s van.

    Read More

  • Negligence Case Study

    2378 Words  | 5 Pages

    Review the scenario below. Consider the legal principles influencing the likelihood of any successful action against Steve in negligence.

    Read More

  • Liability for Omissions in Tort Law

    882 Words  | 2 Pages

    There is a strict distinction between acts and omissions in tort of negligence. “A person is often not bound to take positive action unless they have agreed to do so, and have been paid for doing so.” (Cane.2009; 73) The rule is a settled one and allows some exceptions only in extreme circumstances. The core idea can be summarized in “why pick on me” argument. This attitude was spectacularly demonstrated in a notoriously known psychological experiment “The Bystander effect” (Latané & Darley. 1968; 377-383). Through practical scenarios, psychologists have found that bystanders are more reluctant to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases. Such acts of omission are hardly justifiable in moral sense, but find some legal support. “A man is entitled to be as negligent as he pleases towards the whole world if he owes no duty to them.” (L Esher Lievre v Gould [1893] 1 Q.B. 497) Definitely, when there is no sufficient proximity between the parties, a legal duty to take care cannot be lawfully exonerated and imposed, as illustrated in Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999] All ER (D) 722). If it could, individuals would have been in the permanent state of over- responsibility for others, neglecting their own needs. Policy considerations in omission cases are not inspired by the parable of Good Samaritan ideas. Judges do favour individualism as it “permits the avoidance of vulnerability and requires self-sufficiency. “ (Hoffmaster.2006; 36)

    Read More

  • Occupiers' Liability from the Common Law

    1692 Words  | 4 Pages

    The first point to note when analysing occupiers’ liability is that originally it was separate to the general principles of negligence which were outlined in Donoghue v Stevenson .The reason for this “pigeon hole approach” was that the key decision of occupiers’ liability, Indermaur v Dames was decided sixty six years prior to the landmark decision of Donoghue v Stevenson . McMahon and Binchy state the reason why it was not engulfed into general negligence, was because it “… had become too firmly entrenched by 1932 … to be swamped by another judicial cross-current” Following on from Indermaur v Dames the courts developed four distinct categories of entrant which I will now examine in turn.

    Read More

  • An Omission

    409 Words  | 1 Pages

    By failing to feed her. and seek medical help, they incurred criminal liability for her death. On the other hand, Stone and Dobinson were not mentally equipped to. sufficiently carry out their duty of care. It could also be argued.

    Read More

More about Legal Studies and Tort Law

Open Document