Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Actionable negligence in tort
Case study of tort of negligence
Dangers of texting and driving
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Actionable negligence in tort
On December 12th 2012, round 5.40pm, my client, Mrs J. Smith, was involved in a car accident, which has caused her to be off work since the accident due to a broken back and several major surgeries. The accident was caused by the negligence of your client, Mr J. Sherwood, who was reported, by Mrs Smith, to be driving while ‘texting on his phone’, which led to him to crash into her car, as he did not spot at the red lights. In the previous letter I had sent, I stated what the liability requirement in the tort of negligence were, regarding this case. Now I am going to apply these criteria to the case in question. Firstly, there is evidence that the offender, Mr Sherwood, owed my client a duty of care, which he breached. The offender should have been driving reasonably, as he is an ordinary person doing a task, driving. The first part to check if a duty of care is owed is foreseeability, and it is clear that it was foreseeable that such accident would happen, as driving while using a hand-held phone would be classed as careless or dangerous driving, as the person capacity to drive would be lowered, due to them not being focused on the task, which in this case lead to a c car accident, and serious damage to a person, physical as well as mental, including the car itself. The second factor is proximity, which as previously explained means, how close or proximate was the event (timing), space and relationship. There is no relationship between Mrs Smith and Mr Sherwood, as they were two ordinary people driving on a road. However, the act of crashing into Mrs Smith’s car was proximate in time and space, as it was immediate, as well as the damages of the event. This increases the fact that Mr Sherwood owes my client a duty of care and has b... ... middle of paper ... ...the costs of these have to be included, as well as prescriptions, physiotherapy etc. On the other hand, the non-pecuniary losses, focus on the loss of future earning, and are more elevated. First of all, the costs for the repairs of the car would be of roughly £350. The fact that Mrs Smith has been off work for such a long period, about 6 months, and she is estimated to be off work for another 6, causes the amount of compensation amount to raise. My client earned £20.000 a year, which is what she’s going to lose. This added to the amount owed for the physical damages equals to £74.000. My client is likely to recover from this accident, and will also be able to carry on her job as a teacher, meaning that are currently no other future losses which would be caused by this accident. Underneath I have included a screenshot of the website I used to come to this conclusion.
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.
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.
The refinement of this definition has significant legal implications, as it broadens the scope of those who can sue within blameless accidents. Prior to this, such victims would also face being labelled with “fault”. Supporting the findings of Axiak, by establishing non-tortious conduct as separate from “fault”, similar, future cases are more likely to proceed despite the plaintiff’s contributory
Fletcher’s paradigm of reciprocity is a model that describes when liability for an act is shifted from one party to another – in the case of tort liability from victim to defendant. The paradigm discusses two issues. The first issue is whether or not the victim has a right to recovery from an injury. The outcome of the first issue – whether or not the victim has a right to recovery – is dependent on both the actions of the victim and the danger posed by the defendant at the time of the injury. If the actions of the victim posed as much danger to the defendant as the actions of the defendant posed to the victim then there would be no transference of liability. Both parties would be at fault in this case. However, if the actions of the victim did not pose as much danger to the defendant as the actions of the defendant posed to the victim then liability would be transferred to the defendant. When the danger that each party exhibits on one another is unequal there has to be transference of liability. This leads into the second issue that is discussed by the paradigm.
The first thing that one needs to consider is the situation that victims are normally under. No one chooses to be in an accident, it is something that is unexpected. Because of that those who are affected are often not at a point financially where they can handle the results of the accident such as lost time at work, medical bills, and other associated cost. Worsening the situation is the fact that the injuring party in the accident often does not want to compensate the victims for their actions. This results in an even
If the victim is injured, or suffered physical or emotional distress, they have the right to sue in civil court, where you may be ordered to pay monetary damages such as medical bills, compensation for the victim’s lost days at work, and even money for the pain and suffering caused to the victim.
Drafting the paperwork and other documents that are involved in the case should also be under his scope of work. Evidence that points out to the client being a victim and clear him from any responsibilities towards the incident is also another goal for the legal representative. Interviewing witnesses and reviewing reports from the police and other authorities who may have been first on the scene is crucial. The responsibility of the company that owns the vehicle and the driver should be established when it comes to getting the necessary compensation and support from them. The mistakes that happened leading to the mishap should be highlighted, especially if these were made by the driver or any other entity that may have influenced the
Rule 3: To be recoverable from the defendant the losses incurred must actually be caused by the negligent act: see Cork v Kirby MacLean To be recoverable the losses incurred must actually be caused by the negligent act and not to be remote. This means that the damage must not only a direct consequence of the negligent act but must have also been reasonably foreseeable: see Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd Application 3: In facts, applying ‘but for” test helps to solve the problem. On one hand, Rebecca accepted to join a ride with Michelle even realizing she was too drunk.
Imagine being a paramedic and you just arrived on the scene of a car accident. The car accident involved a man, whose car was driven off the bridge and into a river. The male driver was unable to get out of the car and ended up drowning. On your initial examination of the man’s body, you determined he did not die immediately but attempted to escape the car. Soon his family arrived on site and the man, whom drowned, his wife approaches you, upset and asks you, “If her husband was killed instantly in a crash or did he suffer before he died?” You must decide how you will answer this tough question, rather to lie, defer to someone else, or not to lie to her. Based of Kant’s theories the conclusion is we should not lie to this woman about what happened to her husband but speak the truth to her about the matter.
An officer began a routine stop for someone exceeding the speed limit but the driver of the sports car they were trying to pull over speed up instead of slowing down. During the course of this chase the speeds of both the police car and the sports car rose to above 100 miles per hour. At the end of the high speed chase the officer lost control of their cruiser and ran up on a sidewalk hitting a pedestrian, ultimately killing the pedestrian. In the same moment hearing the commotion caused by this accident the sports car driver looked back and proceeded to crash the sports car. Following the impact the sports car driver was killed and now people are looking for a place to distribute the blame for these two deaths. It must be decided if the officer is at fault for these deaths and the best way for the police department to act following these deaths. The legal, ethical and moral aspects of each situation must be evaluated. After this evaluation is made decisions must be made that incorporate and satisfy all of these variables in a manner most favorable to the police department.
In order to critically assess the approach of the courts in allowing damages for pure economic loss in cases of negligence. One must first outline what pure economic loss is and what it consists off. Pure economic loss can be defined as financial loss or damage to one party caused by another party due to their negligence however the negligent act that is carried out is ‘purely’ economic and has no relation to any physical damage caused to any person or property. Numerous cases illustrate pure economic loss and losses that are deemed to be ‘purely economic’ are demonstrated under the Accidents Act 1976.
A website traffic accident, additionally referred to as a traffic accident, car crash, motor vehicle mishap, vehicle crash, car mishap, road website traffic accident, roadway web traffic mishap, wreckage (U.S.A), car crash, or auto smash (Australian) takes place when a car collides with one more car, pedestrian, animal, road debris, or various other stationary obstruction, such as a tree or utility post. If you are considering filing a car mishap claim, you need to be mindful of the statute of restrictions. You could be wondering, why choose Wilshire Law practice? Aren't auto mishap law office a dime a dozen? Injury mills that refine tons of cases without special care are definitely common.
The Act allows negligence as the sole ground unlike common law which required the claimant to establish ‘fraud’ even if negligence existed. It is believed that the ‘d...
If the driver was at fault and if you have suffered injuries due to the negligence of this driver, we can assure you that we will defend your rights and we will get you the compensation you deserve. The driver may try to put the blame on you but if there is evidence to the contrary, we will use it in your
Automobile accidents happen all around us. We see cars in the middle of the road after just rear ending each other. We see cars driving around town with big dents in them. Do you ever stop to wonder how car accidents happen? Physics; that’s how they happen. There are several aspects of physics that apply to automobile accidents.