Analysis of Schoupp v Verryt Case: Legal Elements and Negligence Responsibility

Business Law Assignment 1
Business Law-Schoupp v Verryt
Name:
Professor:
College:
Course:
City/state:
Date:

Business Law Assignment 2
Question: 1
Analysis of the; Schoupp v Verryt case, legal elements that the first judge used in applying the
law that brought legal conclusion in this case
Legal element Facts which satisfy the legal element
Obligation/Duty The defendant Verryt as a driver had a duty to ensure that other
road users were safe. In this case he was responsible for Schoupp’s
safety and the other two boys (Fleming, J.G., 2014). Although there
wasn’t any binding legal agreement, by agreeing to the boys to
skitch holding his vehicle, he was responsible for their safety
(Feldthusen, 2010). The law is very explicit in that the driver of the
vehicle should ensure full road safety responsibility of the vehicle
at all times.
Breach of duty Despite not having a binding legal agreement, Verryt was expected
to take diligent care in ensuring safety of the skitching boys
(Kessler, et. al., 2016). He was driving at between 10 to 15
kilometres per hour, which seemed to be fast considering the boys
were not wearing any protective gear (McDonald, 2010). Even if
the driver could have been slower, the act of skitching is prohibited
in Rule 244 of road safety.
Cause in Fact In negligence cases the defendant was directly involved in the
damages and injuries to the plaintiff. Had it not been that he agreed
to the boys’ request, the damages and injuries could not have

Business Law Assignment 3
happened (Folsom, R.H., 2010).
Proximate Cause The defendant could have foreseen the possibility of an accident
happening in this particular case (Beever, 2012). This makes him
responsible as to agreeing and being the one driving makes him
directly liable. The defendant was also a mature adult who should
have made better judgement than the young boys.
Damages The plaintiff suffered server damages to his skull and brain. This
clearly satisfies the legal element of negligence on the defendant
Verryt (Gallup, 2015). The damages were not only immediate but
also hindered the boy to be gainfully employed when he becomes
an adult.
Question: 2 (a)
The first judge found the plaintiff to be liable of negligence. These were actions that lead
to the injuries (Beever, 2011). Although the boy was 12 years old he was able to reason and
make better choices. Despite full responsibility being levied to the driver who was a mature
driver, the boy was responsible for the following.
 The boy was not wearing a helmet or any head protection.
 Willingly taking part in a very risky exercise.
 The boy did not put in place adequate measures for his own personal safety.
 Skating while holding the defendants moving vehicle which is both illegal and risky.