Civil Law

Running head: CIVIL LAW
Civil Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CIVIL LAW
The given case study discusses about the negligence of a reasonable person who failed to
meet the standard of care for carrying out his duty of care. Sam, knowing that his car had issues
with the brakes and it needed servicing, went on the trip with his children without paying heed to
the condition of the car for he did not want to disappoint his children. However, he did not think
about the situation of the road, which always has an uncertainty, whether with the condition of
the road or with the fellow drivers. Although he maintained a speed of 45 mph and enough space
between the vehicle in front of his car, yet that cannot cover for his negligence of ignoring the
poor condition of the car. The fact that the road was slippery due to the sloppy manure deposited
by Farmer Giles could bring in the defence of contributory negligence, as it was a public road. In
addition, the fact that Jenny was over-speeding and that her car veered across the road and
landed in front of Sam’s car unexpectedly for she suffered a sudden fit, would also attract the
defence of contributory negligence. The court would consider all the factors and would lay down
an appropriate judgment that would held Sam to be guilty of breaching his duty of care;
however, the court would consider the defences of contributory negligence for the matter.
Deviating from what law should be applied to the case, it is needed to be discussed as to
what the response of the law should be in this matter. In accordance with the case of Latimer v
AEC [1953] AC 643, the Objective Test for Reasonable person needs to be determine to
understand the standard of care of the defendant. The defendant was not held guilty for breach of
duty of care for he met the standard of care. The court, in the case of Roberts v Ramsbottom
[1980] 1 WLR 823 held that the defendant guilty of breaching his duty of care, for he being a
seasoned driver should have known his standard of care; therefore, would not be pardoned for his
illness. However, in Mansfield v Weetabix [1997] EWCA Civ 1352, the court did not held the