Business Law Assignment | Law of Tort
11 Pages2802 Words162 Views
Added on 2019-11-25
Business Law Assignment | Law of Tort
Added on 2019-11-25
ShareRelated Documents
Running head: BUSINESS LAW 1Law of TortAuthor Name(s)InstitutionAuthor Note
BUSINESS LAW 2AbstractIn law, a tort is a civil offense where the court awards compensation as a remedy for the wrongedperson. According to the Law of Torts, people owe others duties in different ways. For example, all drivers have a duty of care to the rest of the road users. Similarly, the occupier of a particular property owes a duty of care to all persons who visit the premises. This writing will be an examination of the different from obligations that the law implies to people through the law of tort.Keywords: Law of Tort, Negligence, Compensation, Misrepresentation
BUSINESS LAW 3Law of Tort The occupier of properties or people dealing with the public cannot escape the liabilitieswhen they breach their duties. The work of the law of tort is to govern all these wrongs and their liabilities. In particular, This paper will focus on the scope of the tort of negligence and the tort of misrepresentation.Tort of Negligence and MisrepresentationTorts of negligence are situations where people's reckless actions progress to the harm of others (Beatty, Samuelson & Bredeson, 2013). A misrepresentation happens when one party’s actions make the other party believe that the conditions are true whereas it is untrue in a real sense (Beatty, Samuelson & Bredeson, 2013). Sometimes the issue of misrepresentation overlapsbetween contract law and the law of tort. In contract law, (Clarkson, Miller, Cross & Clarkson, 2015) states that the innocent party has a remedy of rescission whereas, in tort law, an injured party can obtain damages including punitive damages which are not available in the law of contract.Components of Tort of NegligenceThe court demands a claim for negligence to establish some elements. These are the duty of care, violation of that duty, reasonable and foreseeable prove that damages resulted from the breach of the defendant's duty of care (Mann, Roberts & Smith, 2012).First Element of Negligence: Duty to CareThe fundamental principle behind the duty of care is that while people enjoy their rights, they should ensure that they protect the right of others (Mann, Roberts & Smith, 2012). The concept of duty to care dates back to the landmark case of (Donoghue v Stevenson, 1932). The case developed what came to be known as the 'neighbor principle.'
BUSINESS LAW 4The claimant consumed beer in a café after which a decomposed snail appeared from the bottle. As a result, the claimant claimed damages amounting to £500 from the defendant who was the beer manufacturer. The judge held that every person owes a duty of care to others, and should protect them from any reasonably foreseeable danger.Second Element of Negligence: Breach of Duty to CareThe claimant should show that no reasonable man would have failed to do what the defendant neglected to do (Varuhas, 2014). The defendant must act with the care in which a reasonable person in his capacity would have acted. For instance, in (Nettleship v Weston, 1971),the defendant was a driver learner, on a third lesson learning from the claimant, the defendant hitthe post injuring the claimant. The court found that a duty of care existed from the learner and hewas liable even though he was an unskilled driver. Simply put, no reasonable third lesson-driver, a student would have acted in that manner. The third element of Negligence: The Claimant's Loss or Damage Resulted from the Defendant’s Breach of DutyFirstly, the claimant must show that the defendant neglects caused the losses or damages. The court usually assesses this factual matter through the ‘but for’ test (Varuhas, 2014). Secondly, the claimed loss or damages must be reasonable and foreseeable (Sohn, D. H., 2013). Simply put, they should not be too remote. A scenario for this situation is (Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee, 1969) The husband died after being sent home without examination. The court found that even though the hospital neglected to examine the patient, with the examination or without it, he would have died out of the arsenic poisoning. Therefore, lack of examination was not the cause of death.
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
(solved) Business Law Doclg...
|11
|2841
|40
Contract Law | Assignment (Doc)lg...
|11
|2727
|158
English Tort Law Assignmentlg...
|9
|2899
|81
Tort and the Duty of Care in Business Lawlg...
|7
|2015
|95
Tort Law: Duty of Care and Negligencelg...
|9
|1989
|98
Tort Law and Duty of Care: Liability of Extortionate Plc for Injury of Samanthalg...
|7
|1830
|39