Analyzing Negligence in Car Accident Scenarios

This assignment delves into the legal concepts of negligence within the context of car accidents. It presents a detailed analysis of two distinct scenarios: a hit-and-run accident involving Randall's car and a collision between Rebecca and Kevin. The report meticulously examines the relevant laws, defines acts applicable to each situation, and outlines the potential penalties imposed on the parties involved. Furthermore, it explores the broader application of legal principles in these specific car accident circumstances.

Rights and liabilities of the
parties in torts law of
negligence.

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
ISSUES RELATED TO THE CASE ..............................................................................................1
RULES RELATED TO THE CASE ..............................................................................................2
Application of Rules .......................................................................................................................3
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................4
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................5

INTRODUCTION
Law is the structure which is developed with various regulations and rules with regard to
commercial operations and transactions. In simple words, it can be portrayed as people or
individuals breaking any law or rule set by the legislation of the country is subject to liability or
punishment. Australian legal structure is very well structured with respect to the laws and rights
of people. This report is in context to Tort Law, according to law jurisdictions Tort is a civil
working that causes somebody else to suffer or harm unfairly, which result in legal liability for
the individual who commits the act of Tort. Crimes can be Tort but the cause of legal action is
not necessarily a crime as it may be because of negligence. This report will identify issues, rules,
application and conclusion of rights as well as liabilities of parties in Torts Law of Negligence
with regard to the scenario provided.
ISSUES RELATED TO THE CASE
 Issues 1 - Major issue in the present scenario is an act of negligence which became a
harm to others. The negligence is a failure to practice appropriate or ethical ruled care
that is expected to be exercised within specified conditions or circumstances. The area of
Tort law is called as negligence which consists of harms caused by failing to an act as a
form of carelessness due to some circumstances or situations.1 The main concept of
negligence is that individuals should take effective care in their actions while considering
the potential harm that actions may cause to other property or people. In the scenario,
Kate was the person who act carelessly or show negligence. Due to the excitement of
meeting her mother who was returning after 12 months, Kate reacted irresponsibly while
driving. She got distracted and drove through the intersection containing a clear STOP
sign which is a warning board and legal rule of the roads. This was a clear Tort of
Negligence. Kate did not check whether the intersection was clear and this resulted in an
accident with Randall's car who was driving properly.2
 Issues 2 - Kevin who went to help Randall was also hit by a lady named Rebecca who
was driving a motorbike. Kevin was also harmed due to a brain injury caused by falling
on the road. But as per the scenario, Rebecca got a heart attack and that was the reason
1 (Roy and Althaf,2016)
2 (Epstein and Catherine,2016)
1

she collided with Kevin which was a controllable act by Rebecca. The major issue in the
context of scenario is observed to be Tort of negligence by Kate. She clearly broke rules
or laws she needed to follow while driving on the road. Rebecca who was ridding the
motorbike needed to not to ride it when she was not fit or suffering from heart disease.
Therefore, breaking the street rule due to negligence is the main cause of harm in the case
and is a major issue.3 Randall lost his right leg and cannot continue his AFL career which
that is a very big harm him. It was not crime that was performed with a will, but only due
to negligence, Kate became the cause of a major harm.
RULES RELATED TO THE CASE
Issues 1 – Breaking the traffic rule and hitting a car
Negligence which generally refers to failure to exercise a standard level of care, plays a
vital role to determine faults in tort law cases mostly in the accident situations. In the case of
accidents, Negligence is claimed on the basis of personal injury related to cause or harm
sustained in car accidents by passengers, drivers, etc. Mostly, all the car accidents lawsuits are
controlled and governed by the law of negligence. Negligence is a tort, also known as a civil
wrong. An individual is negligent when she or he fails to exercise the level of care that a careful
and a reasonably prudent person would exercise under same situations. The road rules related to
intersection states that the driver must slow down or stop even without traffic lights or stop
board, breaking this rule has a penalty of offence provision.
The jury decides whether the defendant acted negligently in a situation. In a straight
situation, these components cooperate as . The respondent was working his auto on open roads
and in this way owed a lawful obligation to different drivers to utilize sensible care while
driving. At the point when the respondent ran a STOP sign at the intersection, he broke that
legitimate obligation. The rupture of his obligation made him crash his auto into the offended
party's vehicle. Because of this impact, the offended party endured harms as both individual
wounds and property harm. In the event that the offended party can effectively demonstrate these
certainties, he or she will be qualified for recoup pay from the respondent (ordinarily from the
litigant's insurance agency) for the damage endured.
3 (Wildavsky,2018)
2

The lawmakers earlier were generally considered with the individuals who wrongly acted
in an intentional manner in order to disturb peace, and were not much concerned with those
failed to act. Due to this, the negligence law was created which was based on injuries that is
considered to be as a result of indirect causes. Negligence became a great part of the legal system
during industrial revolution with the increasing use of machinery into daily life. It is not
unprecedented for an offended party to be somewhat to blame in an accident case. Recuperation
from the respondents is yet conceivable in such cases since EU takes after the precept of
comparative negligence. Under this tenet, obligation might be isolated among every single
capable gathering as indicated by their relative level of blame.4
On the off chance that a judge or jury finds that the offended party is halfway subject for
his or her own particular wounds, the harms he or she can recuperate from the litigants will be
decreased relatively. For instance, if the offended party is observed to be 20 percent at risk, he or
she may in any case be qualified for recuperate the other 80 percent of his or her harms from the
litigants. The act of negligence is analyzed in order to identify whether the act was only
negligence or it also includes some legal connection, between the negligence and the act. The
Tort claim is a claim with respect to expenses which are not paid by ICBC as NO Fault Benefits
but that rises due to the injuries a victim sustained in a car accident, the loss of opportunity to
earn income in future or the wage loss as well as an amount for suffering and pain. All treatment
expenses that the party incur due to their injuries are recoverable under a tort claim.
Application of Rules
In the present scenario Kate is a defendant who ran the STOP sign at the intersection and
collided with Randall's car injuring him. The first incident or wrong act was exercised by Kate
was to break the traffic rule by avoiding STOP sign due to distraction, it was Tort to negligence
according to the whole accident as Randall was seriously injured as well as lost his right leg. 5
The road safety act is applicable on Kate as she ran STOP sign at intersection. She will be fined
between $200 and $1000 penalty for not stopping at STOP sign, along with this she collided with
Randall's car and caused him a great harm. Kate did not stop and helped Randall which is again a
criminal act exercised for which Kate is subject to a penalty of $20000 and 15 years of
4 (Goldberg and et.al,2016)
5 (Keating and Gregory,2016)
3

imprisonment for hit and run. The Tort claim can be imposed by Randall for getting harm as he
lost his right leg as well as future career. Kate need to compensate for his injury and
unemployment condition caused by her negligence. In the case of Rebecca, brain injury was
involved. The section 134 of motor vehicle act is applicable here, Rebecca need to pay the
compensation for the injury of Kevin who was trying to help Randall. Kevin got a brain injury
which is serious liability for Rebecca as in cases involving brain injury, pedestrian can claim
amount over $60000. Both the cases involve hitting and injuries, Kevin got a brain injury and
Randall lost his leg that is a permanent loss. In both cases Kate and Rebecca needs to
compensate if found guilty with regards to the claim made by both parties. 6
Entitlement to compensation
The person who is injured as pedestrian such as Kevin is covered by the motor accident
compensation scheme. The Rebecca is entitled to payments covering the following elements -
 Rehabilitation expenses
 Medical and hospital treatment costs
 Future and past economic loss
 Permanent impairment
 Suffering and pain.
Randall is entitled to Tort negotiation he can claim for compensation as he lost his leg and future
earning opportunities. Kate needs to pay all the penalty and get imprisoned according to the
Section 368 of the Highway Safety Code and Tort act of negligence. For example, if the
offended party is observed to be 20 percent at risk, he or she may in any case be qualified for
recuperate the other 80 percent of his or her harms from the party. The act of negligence is
analysed in order to determine whether the act was only negligence or it also consists some legal
link, between the negligence and the act. The Tort claim is a claim with respect to expenses
which are not paid by ICBC as NO Fault Benefits but that rises due to the injuries a victim
sustained in a car accident, the loss of chance to earn income in future or the wage loss as well as
an amount for suffering and pain. All aid expenses that the party incur due to their injuries are
recoverable under a tort claim. 7
6 (Negligence and Tort Law in an Auto Accident, 2015)
7 (McDonald and et.al, ,2015)
4

Conclusion
The above report concluded that Tort negligence act are not deliberate activities, but
instead present when person fails to act as a reasonable individual to someone whom she or he
owes a duty or obligation of one individual to other. The report determined various issues related
to given scenario, such as act of negligence exercised by Kate by running the STOP sign at the
intersection there are various elements of negligence as well hit and run Randall's car. The other
part cover collision between Rebecca and Kevin. The report determined laws and act applicable
on the scenario and the penalties imposed on and entitled by the parties. Furthermore, the report
also presented application of various laws on the given circumstances in the scenario.
REFERENCES
Books and Journal
Roy, Alpana, and Althaf Marsoof. "Negligent omissions as a basis for holding online hosts liable
for infringements of trade mark rights: an Australian perspective." (2016).
Wildavsky, Aaron. "From Individual to System Blame: A Cultural Analysis of the Historical
Change in the Law of Torts (with Daniel Polisar)." In Cultural Analysis, pp. 171-198.
Routledge, 2018.
Keating, Gregory C. "Is There Really No Liability without Fault: A Critique of Goldberg &
Zipursky." Fordham L. Rev. Res Gestae 85 (2016): 24.
Goldberg, John CP, Anthony J. Sebok, and Benjamin C. Zipursky. Tort Law: Responsibilities
and Redress. Wolters Kluwer law & business, 2016.
McDonald, Cara. "Torts Law: Blurred Elements: The Nebulous Nature of Foreseeability, the
Confounding Quality of Misfeasance, and the Minnesota Supreme Court's Decision-Doe
169 v. Brandon." Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 41 (2015): 365.
Epstein, Richard A., and Catherine M. Sharkey. Cases and materials on torts. Wolters Kluwer
Law & Business, 2016.
Segerson, Kathleen, ed. Economics and liability for environmental problems. Routledge, 2018.
Online
[Negligence and Tort Law in an Auto Accident, 2015].Available through:
<http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/personal-injury/auto-accident/negligence-and-tort-
law-auto-acciden>
5

6

7