Michelle's Negligence and Rebecca's Injury

This assignment delves into a legal scenario involving Michelle and Rebecca. Michelle is being sued by Rebecca for negligence after causing an accident that resulted in Rebecca's injury. The analysis focuses on Michelle's liability, considering factors like breach of duty of care, remoteness of damage, contributory negligence, and voluntary assumption of risk. It examines the relevant legal provisions and their application to the case, ultimately evaluating Michelle's potential responsibility for compensation.

Commercial law

INTRODUCTION
Commercial law is all about providing practical support to companies and individuals
across the spectrum of contract in which they had entered into. As it deals with issue of contract
or tort which arises at any stage of commercial cycle 1. In this assignment, negligence of tort is
discussed along with one case study and what issues were faced by Rebecca when she wants to
file the case against Michelle.
TASK
Issue
In given case, Rebecca and Michelle have to join the concert whose name is ‘An Evening
with Oprah’. While purchasing ticket, issue had aroused at box office and due to this
performance has been delayed by one hour. So, they both decided to passes the time while
consumption of wine together. But when show is over, Rebecca understood that Michelle was
too drunk and he is forcing to drive a car. When he starts driving dangerously, the car was
crashed and due to this serious injury had taken place where Rebecca leg was broken. So the
issues were arising that whether Rebecca will demonstrate that Michelle is having owes a duty of
care. Further, Rebecca has also to verify that Michelle was negligent or not. Moreover, she
wishes to prosecute against Michelle for his carelessness and recover loss amount.
Rule
A tort is civil wrong where innocent party is entitled for claiming the damage amount in
terms of money. There are many torts which is protecting fundamental liberties such as;
fundamental rights and personal liberty. In simple words, tort is protecting the rights of people
from wrongful conduct which is performing by others and provide right them to sue for
compensation if it is possible 2. Negligence is considered as failure where person is not
performed their duty in specific circumstances. It is responsibility of people to exercise with
reasonable care so that other person will not suffer from harm or any serious injury. The
following are some elements which has to be proved by plaintiff so that they can recover the loss
amount from other person.
1 Pirie, S., 2012. Legal and professional issues for the perioperative practitioner. Journal
of perioperative practice. 22(2). pp.57-62.
2 Gardner, J., 2011. What is tort law for? Part 1. The place of corrective justice. Law and
Philosophy. 30(1). pp.1-50.
1

Duty of care – This element of negligence reflect upon that employer has to provide safe
and healthy environment to employees. Person become liable if any incident take place or if
there is a possibility of future undesirable incidents. Moreover, both parties are required to
execute their deeds in accordance with conditions which are specified in agreement 3. In other
words, plaintiff is having legal liability which is based on the failure of defendant responsibility.
Breach of duty – In this, if one party fails to perform his duty as per contractual terms
and conditions. However, claimant has to prove that the loss which has been suffered by them is
occurred due to the negligence of other person 4. Thus, they claimant can get the right for
demanding compensation of amount from other party.
Remoteness of damages – It is considered as most effectual aspects of negligence where
injured party had to prove that the loss which has been incurred by offender is of foreseeable
nature.
Besides this, if claimant party succeed in proving all of that damaged has been occurred
due to the failure or neglect of respondent party, then they are having authority to suit case
against them and recover loss amount.
Application
As per provision of tort of law if anybody is doing wrong work and causing damaged to
other person, then defendant is liable to compensate loss amount to injured person. In given case
scenario, Michelle drunk too much and he wants to ride a car. When he started driving the car
hazardously, Rebecca requested from him twice to get out from car. But Michelle didn’t listen to
him and constantly driving and at some point of time car was crashed. In this accident serious
injury had taken place where legs of Rebecca had broken. For filing suit against Michelle,
following were issues which has to be proved by Rebecca in order to get compensation also.
Michelle owes a duty of care because he is responsible for that while driving car no
damages should be incurred. Further, Rebecca had clearly proved that Michelle owes her duty of
care at the time of driving the car.
In second issue, Michelle breaches duty of care because Rebecca stop him to drive the
car. So, she become successful to prove that Michelle owes a breach of duty of care. Moreover,
3 Geistfeld, M. A., 2011. Tort law and the inherent limitations of monetary exchange:
Property rules, liability rules, and the negligence rule. Journal of Tort Law. 4(1).
4 Palmer, V. V., 2011. The great spill in the Gulf... and a sea of pure economic loss:
reflections on the boundaries of civil liability. Penn St. L. Rev. 116. p.105.
2

Michelle is liable to compensate loss amount to Rebecca because due to his negligence serious
accident take place.
In third issue, Rebecca had to prove that Michelle owes her remoteness. Remoteness is
that which had set the rule in both tort and contract and where person is liable to compensate
amount for performing a wrong activity. However, the damages which has been incurred by
Michelle is liable to pay compensation up to that extent where proper treatment facility can be
provided to Rebecca. So, she was also become successful in this Michelle owes her remoteness.
According to Civil Liability Act 2003, section 23 and Wrong Act 1954 had determined
the contributory negligence whether harm of person is engaged in contributory negligence 5. As
Michelle is having right to rely upon defence of contributory. In this court allows that a
minimum reduction of 25% with intoxication is allowed to plaintiff or it be can also more. So,
Michelle is not liable for compensating whole loss amount to Rebecca.
Further as per provision of Civil Liability Act, voluntary assumption of risk means that
defendant is having authority to avoid liability by establishing voluntary assumption of risk 6.
But offender must show that claimant; are fully aware about the risk which is involved in
activity; voluntarily accepted the whole risk and had a full comprehension and appreciation of
the nature and extent of risk. In given case, Rebecca is fully aware about the risk which were
involved while driving the car by Michelle and through this he got the right rely upon to
voluntary assumption of risk.
Conclusion
From above report it has been concluded that Rebecca got the right to suit against
Michelle because she has proved that breach of duty of care is there. Further, remoteness and
owes a duty of care is there by Michelle. In contrary to this, Michelle is relying upon defence of
contributory where he is liable to give some percentage of amount of compensation to Rebecca.
5 Osaka, E., 2012. Corporate liability, government liability, and the Fukushima nuclear
disaster. Browser Download This Paper.
6 Yang, Y., 2012. Corporate Civil Liability Under the Alien Tort Statute: The Practical
Implications from Kiobel. W. St. UL Rev. 40. p.195.
3

REFERENCES
4