Legal Position of Bob in a Negligence Claim

This article discusses the legal position of Bob in a negligence claim after he suffered personal injury and economic loss due to a car accident caused by his drunk neighbor Derek. It also explores the defense of contributory negligence.

Business Law
Running head: Business Law Assignment 0
Student’s Name
Address

Business Law Assignment 1
Contents
Issue.................................................................................................................................................2
Rules................................................................................................................................................2
Application......................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................5
References........................................................................................................................................6

Business Law Assignment 2
Issue
In the given case, Bob who is a guitarist requested his neighbor Derek to drop him at concert site.
Derek who was drunk has become agree to do so. On the way, Derek met an accident with a road
side lorry and Bob and Derek got serious injury. Due to this Bob’s guitar was destroyed and he
also suffered from the loss of fee of his next three concerts. Now the issue is to evaluate the legal
position of Bob.
Rules
Literal meaning of Tort is “Civil Wrong” (study.com, 2018). There cannot be a defined law on
each and every aspect hence Tort Law being a general law provides justice in civil cases where
any specific law cannot be apply. It is provided under Tort law, that a reasonable person owns
duty of care towards others while performing any act which can cause harm to that other person.
In case of breach of duty of care, the party who does so, becomes liable to the victim (Oliphant
and Nola, 2017). Such breach of duty can be the result of negligence, nuisance or defamation.
Negligence is the most common factor due to which people breaches their duty of care.
To make a person liable under Tort Law, it is mandatory that all the required condition must be
comply. According to the modern law of negligence, to become succeed in a negligence claim,
claimant must prove the following:
1. There must be duty of care owned by defendant.
2. Such duty must be breached.

Business Law Assignment 3
3. Due to breach of the duty there must be some damages.
4. The breach of duty must be the reason of mentioned damages (e-lawresources, 2018a).
This is to mention that damages can be in form of personal injury, psychiatric harm or economic
loss or combination of two or more of them (Bussani and Sebok, 2015). What remedy will
claimant get, is depends on the nature and quantity of damages.
In addition to above factors, some defenses are also provided under Tort law. These defences are
the circumstances where defendant can neglect their liability and need not to pay any damages to
claimant. These defenses are volenti non fit injuria, contributory negligence, Ex turpi causa and
Exclusion of liability (e-lawresources, 2018b). Contributory Negligence is the most significant
defence. Contributory Negligence exists in those circumstances where claimant also is on part of
mistake. It was held in the case of Davies v Swan Motor Co [1949] 2 KB 291 that where
Claimant himself/herself becomes failed to take care of him/her then defendant can ask for the
defence of contributory negligence. In such cases, where the defendant takes this defence, he/she
has to pay either less or no damages to claimant. According to the case of Froom v
Butcher [1976] 1 QB 286, it is necessary that contributory negligence must be a cause of damage
suffered. It means nature of contributory negligence must be as that in the absence of the same
damages could be prevent.
Application
In the given case, Bob asked for lift to his neighbor Derek to concert hall as his van got broke.
Derek being agreed for the same started driving. At the time of asking for lift, Bob knew that

Business Law Assignment 4
Derek was drunk. Bob was getting late for the concert and for this reason he has started hopping
into Derek’s car. As Derek was drunk, he was driving in a reckless manner so he lost his control
over his car and crashed into a road side lorry. Both Bob and Derek got injured, As earlier stated
that a reasonable person owns a duty of care towards other, thus it was the duty of Derek to drive
carefully. Derek has committed negligence by driving the car in a drunken condition.
Due to the accident, Both Bob and Derek got serious injury. Regardless the fact that Derek also
got injured, it is to state that Bob became victim of personal injury. In addition to this due to the
said accident, Bob’s guitar worth RM15,000 was also destroyed and he had to cancel his next
three concerts. From the mentioned there concerts Bob could get a fee worth RM60,000. Hence,
in total apart from personal injury, Bob has suffered from an economic loss of RM75,000.
In the studied case, all the situations required for of negligence claim were there, as Derek owned
a duty of care to Bob, he failed to do so, Bob has suffered from Personal injury as well economic
loss, and the reason of aforesaid damages was negligence of Derek as he was drunk and driving.
As it was held in the case Davies v Swan Motor Co that in those cases where claimant is also
responsible for failure to take care of him/her along with defendant then defence of contributory
negligence will be applicable. In the given case, Bob was aware with the fact that Derek was
drunk, yet he has asked for lift to him. He also motivated Derek to drive in a fast speed by
hopping into the car. As stated in the case Froom v Butcher that contributory negligence also
must be a reason of damage in order to take this defense, it may state here that both of the said
acts of Bob were reason of accident somewhere.

Business Law Assignment 5
Conclusion
After the study of provided case and relevant laws, it can conclude here that Bob will be entitled
to ask for damages to Derek as Derek owned a duty of care to him and became failed to perform
the same. But in addition to this, it is also necessary to mention that Derek can take defence of
Contributory Negligence as Bob had knowledge about the drunken condition of Derek, still he
has asked for the lift and also provided indication to keep the speed of car fast. So, it may
conclude as Bob can ask for the damages to Derek but such damages would be reduce up to a
level and according to circumstances due to his act of Contributory negligence.

Business Law Assignment 6
References
Bussani, M. and Sebok, A.J. (2015) Comparative Tort Law: Global Perspectives. Northampton :
E. Elgar
Davies v Swan Motor Co [1949] 2 KB 291
e-lawresources. (2018a) Negligence. [online] Available from:
http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Negligence.php [Accessed on 28/06/18]
e-lawresources. (2018b) Defences. [online] Available from:
http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Defences-in-tort-law.php [Accessed on 28/06/18]
Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB 286
Oliphant, K. and Nola, D. (2017) Tort Law: Text and Materials. Oxford : Oxford University
Press.
study.com. (2018) What Is Tort Law? - Definition and Examples. [online] Available from:
https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-tort-law-definition-and-examples.html [Accessed on
28/06/18]