LAW 6 qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio

LAW 6 qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwer
tyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio
pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
Law
Negligence
24-Nov-17
(Student Details: )

LAW 2
Question 1
Issue
Whether Clare can succeed in her claims of negligence against Naomi in this case or not?
Rule
Negligence is covered under the tort law which defines the breach of duty of care which
one person one owed to person two and which results in the person two being harmed or injured.
Under this law, a person is expected to be careful when they undertake such task which has the
capacity of hurting or injuring the other person as a result of their actions (Greene, 2013). Where
a case of negligence is established, the aggrieved party can apply for damages in form of
compensation. However, in order to do so, there is a need to show the presence of duty of care,
its contravention and the resulting injury or harm to the other person (Turner, 2013).
In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100, the court held that the manufacturer owed a
duty of care to the consumer as their manufactured product had the capacity of harming the
consumer. The court upheld in this case that a duty of care had been owed by the defendant
towards the plaintiff as there was presence of proximity between them and it was reasonably
foreseeable that a dead snail in the bottle would cause illness to the person drinking the ginger
beer bottle. As the plaintiff got sick, she was awarded damages for her illness, which had to be
paid by the manufacturer (Latimer, 2012).
The breach of duty of care was established in Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951]
AC 367 where the failure of the council in providing safety gear to the plaintiff was deemed as a

LAW 3
breach of duty of care (Lunney & Oliphant, 2013). It is important that the injury received by the
plaintiff is substantial in nature and not too remote as the remoteness of damage results in
damages not being awarded to the plaintiff and this was upheld in Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v
Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd [1961] UKPC 2 (Strong & Williams, 2011).
Application
In the given case study, Clare was driving on the road and so was Naomi. Their
relationship was such were the actions of one had the ability of affecting another. So, both of
them owed a duty of care towards each other to drive in a careful manner based on Donoghue v
Stevenson. Also, as per this case, it was reasonably foreseeable that a badly driven car could
result in accident. The duty of care was breached by Naomi based on Paris v Stepney Borough
Council as she failed to drive in a careful manner. Naomi drove in a manner where she hit Clare
from behind in slow moving traffic. Thus, the duty of care was breached. The injury sustained by
Clare was not remote and substantial in nature as per Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock
and Engineering Co Ltd as Clare sustained neck injuries and also her car was damaged. She had
to go physiotherapy for 12 months making the injury substantial. This would allow her to make a
claim of damages against Naomi for the undertaken negligence.
Conclusion
Thus, Clare would succeed in her claims of negligence against Naomi in this case.

LAW 4
Question 2
Issue
Whether a defence of contributory negligence can be cited by Naomi against Clare in this
case or not?
Rule
Contributory negligence, as the name suggests, is the contribution made by the plaintiff
in their injuries, where it is deemed that the plaintiff failed to fulfil the duty of care which t hey
owed to their own self. Where a case of contributory negligence is established, the defendant can
get the amount of damages to be paid to the plaintiff reduced by the percentage of the
contribution made to the injury by the plaintiff (Dongen, 2014). Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB
286 was a case in which the plaintiff had been injured in a car accident due to the negligence of
the defendant. However, at the time of the accident, the plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt. This
was deemed as contributory negligence by the court and the damages awarded to the plaintiff
were brought down by £100 (Howarth, Matthews, Morgan, O’Sullivan & Tofaris, 2016).
Application
In this case, Clare was not wearing the seat belt during the accident and this would be
deemed as contributory negligence of Clare owing to the case of Froom v Butcher. However, the
claim of bad weather conditions by Naomi would fail as she was driving in a careless manner
and would have to be liable towards Clare.

LAW 5
Conclusion
Thus, a defence of contributory negligence can be cited by Naomi against Clare, which
would reduce the amount of damages awarded to her by the court.

LAW 6
References
Dongen, E.V. (2014). Contributory Negligence: A Historical and Comparative Study. Boston:
Brill Nijhoff.
Greene, B. (2013). Course Notes: Tort Law. Oxon: Routledge.
Howarth, D., Matthews, M., Morgan, J., O'Sullivan, J., & Tofaris, S. (2016). Hepple and
Matthews' Tort Law: Cases and Materials. West Sussex: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Latimer, P. (2012). Australian Business Law 2012 (31st ed.). Sydney, NSW: CCH Australia
Limited.
Lunney, M., & Oliphant, K. (2013). Tort Law: Text and Materials (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Strong, S.I., & Williams, L. (2011). Complete Tort Law: Text, Cases, & Materials (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Turner, C. (2013). Unlocking Torts (3rd ed.). Oxon: Routledge.