Friday, October 18, 2019

Law of Torts Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Law of Torts - Essay Example I would advise Mr. Andy that his accident occurred in the type of area commonly known for producing similar types of vehicle mishaps, and it will not be necessary for him to prove any type of vicarious liability. It is the duty of the owner to make the property safe. . in the case of McWilliams V. Sir William Arroll 1962, the ‘but for’ test is applicable on the premise that he (Mr. Andy) would not have sustained the injury but for the breach of the (property owner) defendant. Moreover as in Anns V Merton (1977), Lord Wilberforce proposed a two-staged test†¦once neighborhood was established, there is a prima facie duty of care, which can only be rebutted on policy ground. (Boone) I would also caution Mr. Andy that his contributory negligence in not wearing a seat belt as requested by Suzie, may be just cause for his compensation to be reduced. The defendant might introduce the Contributory Negligence Act of 1945, which in part states: Where any person suffers damage as a result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, a claim in respect to that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage, but the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard the claimants share in the responsibility for the damage. (Act 1945) ... Andy on the prospect of two additional potential claims. Where vicarious liability is obvious in one and not so clear in the other. While he was in fact a passenger in a vehicle driven by Suzie, she is not personally liable for his injury. To illustrate this I will use the chain of causation as the example and it works thusly: A caused B, B caused C, then A Caused C. In other words, A (kid blindly exiting from vacant lot) caused B (Suzie to make an abrupt emergency stop when she slammed on her car brakes), caused C (Mr. Andy to break his nose). Which in the strict sense of the law represents an additional claim of negligence for Mr. Andy. Under English Law, David's mother is obliged to know where her non-adult children are at all times. She has specific responsibilities concerning their behaviour. The parent is liable for any harm or damage which the child might cause, as a consequence of being unsupervised.However, I would think that Mr. Andy would in all probability in this instance, be willing to exhibit some compassion, and this case would be a moot point, since David is now deceased and his sibling was badly burned in a fire on the vacant lot. Also, since Mr. Andy was the passenger in the vehicle driven by Suzie, where he encountered an accident, he is at liberty to file a claim against her car insurance company. But, I would advise Mr. Andy against filing the latter claim for a number of reasons: (1) Suzie requested that he wear the passenger seat belt on the passenger side of the car. Either due to the comfort level (given the fact that he is overweight), or simply due to his recalcitrance, he rebuked her request. His refusal of her common sense suggestion was a contributor to the

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.