Commercial Law: Negligence and Contributory Negligence

Running Head: COMMERCIAL LAW
COMMERCIAL LAW
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note

1
COMMERCIAL LAW
Answer One
Legal element Facts which satisfy the legal element
Negligence The respondent commenced proceedings
against the appellant in the District court for
claiming damages due to the negligence of the
appellant. The respondent claimed that he
sustained injuries due to the actions of the
appellant.
Contributory Negligence The defense that had been taken by the
defendant was that the injuries had been caused
to the plaintiff due to his own negligence. The
following points had indicated contributory
negligence on the part of the plaintiff::
 Riding the skateboard while holding on
the moving car of the defendant
 Voluntarily engaging in an activity
which was inherently dangerous
 Not taking necessary precautions of
own safety
 Not wearing a helmet.

2
COMMERCIAL LAW
Answer Two:
a) The defendant argued that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff had been caused due to
the contributory negligence f the defendant. It had been argued that the boy was careless
as he engaged in the following actions :
 Riding the skateboard while holding onto the moving car of the defendant
 Voluntarily engaging in an activity which was inherently dangerous
 Not taking necessary precautions of own safety
 Not wearing a helmet while riding the skateboard.
b) The primary judge in this case had rejected the defense of contributory negligence on the
part of the appellant. It was held by the primary judge that the respondent had been
negligent in the respects as alleged by the respondent. However His Honor in relation to
the ground of defense of failure to wear a helmet stated that the injuries sustained by the
plaintiff would have been the same even if he had worn a helmet. The reasoning given by
the primary judge for taking into consideration of the aforementioned defense ground was
that, the defendant had sustained frontal lobe injuries and that wearing a helmet would
not have reduced the chances of sustain the injuries. The other aspects of carelessness on
the part of the defendant which had contributed significantly to sustaining the injuries had
not been questioned or contested by the judge. It was also held by the primary judge that
the plaintiff had failed to take reasonable care due to which he sustained the injuries.
Answer 3
It can be stated that even though the primary judge had found that the boy was partly personally
liable for sustaining the injuries in spite of that, he decided that the driver should be fully