logo

LAW 6 qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio

6 Pages1082 Words429 Views
   

Added on  2020-04-15

About This Document

LAW 6 qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb

LAW 6 qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio

   Added on 2020-04-15

ShareRelated Documents
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnLawNegligence(Student Details: )
LAW 6 qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio_1
LAW2Question 1IssueWhether 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 aduty 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 6 qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio_2
LAW3breach 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 vMorts 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 byClare 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 aclaim of damages against Naomi for the undertaken negligence.Conclusion Thus, Clare would succeed in her claims of negligence against Naomi in this case.
LAW 6 qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio_3

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Assignment on Commercial Laws
|6
|1395
|79

Essentials of Negligence | Law
|7
|1174
|24

NEGLIGENCE 7 Business Law Assignment Case Study 21-Aug-17
|7
|1478
|124

LAW220 Business Organisations Law | CSU
|6
|1452
|89

Theories of the Common Law of Torts Assignment
|6
|1270
|18

Law Assignment | Commercial & Corporation Law
|6
|1401
|86