Ask a question from expert

Ask now

Tort Laws Name of the University Author Note 1 The area of law under which Georgina can make a claim is the law of negligence

8 Pages1905 Words447 Views
   

Added on  2019-11-25

About This Document

As a good neighbor has the duty to make sure that no harm or injury or any kind of damage is caused to their neighbors as a result of their actions in the same way a person has a duty of care for another person who can suffer injury as a result of their actions. In the given case Georgina has to show that the defendants were not as cautious as a reasonable person as a reasonable person would have made sure that no rock is present in their premises which may cause harm to the users

Tort Laws Name of the University Author Note 1 The area of law under which Georgina can make a claim is the law of negligence

   Added on 2019-11-25

BookmarkShareRelated Documents
Running head: TORT LAWTort LawsName of the studentName of the universityAuthor note
Tort Laws Name of the University Author Note 1 The area of law under which Georgina can make a claim is the law of negligence_1
1TORT LAWAnswer 1The area of law which has been identified in this scenario under which a Georgina can make aclaim is the law of torts. Under the law of tort topics areas like defamation, negligence andnuisance are covered. In this particular case the specific area of tort law under which Georginacan make a claim is the law relating to negligence. This area of law is dealt with the provisionsof common law and also statutory provisions provided through various civil liability acts of therespective states. The concept of negligence came into the context of the legal world through themust referred case of Donoghoue v Stevenson1. The case introduced the neighbor principlewhich lays foundation to the duty of care. As a good neighbor has the duty to make sure that noharm or injury or any kind of damage is caused to their neighbors as a result of their actions inthe same way a person has a duty of care for another person who can suffer injury as a result oftheir actions. The famous concept of the duty of care is the initial requirement to make a claimfor negligence. The duty of care gives rise to the concept of occupiers’ liability as used in thecase of Novakovic v Stekovic2. According to the case the occupier of a premise has a duty ofcare towards those using the premises. Therefore as Georgina was using the space occupied bythe defendants Caravan Park and Mr Preston, they owe a duty of care towards her. In the case of Vaughan v Menlove3 the court used another requirement to establish negligence.This is related to not complying with the duty of care and thus violating it. In this case a testknown as the objective test had been used by the court to answer whether a duty has beenviolated or not. As per the principles of the case the duty is not complied with in case a prudentindividual in similar situation had been more cautious as compared to the defendant. In the given1 1932 AC 5222 [2012] NSWCA 543 (1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 467
Tort Laws Name of the University Author Note 1 The area of law under which Georgina can make a claim is the law of negligence_2
2TORT LAWcase Georgina has to show that the defendants were not as cautious as a reasonable person as areasonable person would have made sure that no rock is present in their premises which maycause harm to the users. The final element is required to raise a claim for negligence is causation. In the case of Barnett vChelsea & Kensington Hospital4 a test known as the “but for” test had been used by the court toanswer causation. As per the concept of causation the injury occurred to the plaintiff has to be aresult of the duty’s violation. Thus as per the “but for” test if the injury would have occurredalthough the duty was not violated than it would not establish negligence. In the given case ifthere would have been no rock than no injury would have been caused to Georgina. Hence shehas can make a claim under negligence under common law and under the civil liability acts. Answer 2This section of the paper will set out the breaches which have been made by the defendant whichthe plaintiff could rely upon making a claim for negligence. As per the civil liability acts of thestates a person is negligent and have breached the duty of care if the risk of injury could beforeseen which means that the risk was known or is deemed to be known to that person.According the facts of the case is evident that the defendants knew that presence of the rock inthe premises which is not easily seen at night can cause harm to any user of the premises. Moreover the rules provide that the risk must not be insignificant, that was not the caseaccording to the facts of the scenario as any person can predict a large rock can cause significantinjury a person. In addition the rules state that if a reasonable person would have been morecaution then than the duty of care has been breached. In this case it was evident that such4 [1969] 1 QB 428
Tort Laws Name of the University Author Note 1 The area of law under which Georgina can make a claim is the law of negligence_3

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
The Concept of Negligence Tort Law
|6
|1211
|114

The Tort of Negligence Law: Assignment
|7
|1186
|242

Commercial law - Sample Assignment
|6
|1461
|106

(solved) Business Law Doc
|11
|2841
|40

Commercial Law Issues - Assignment
|13
|2932
|18

BULAW5914 Commercial Law - Case Study
|8
|1653
|78