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

This article analyzes the Schoupp v Verryt case, including the legal elements used by the first judge and the negligence responsibility of both parties. It also discusses the precedent set by the Court of Appeal and the apportionment of negligence responsibility. The article provides insights into the duty, breach of duty, cause in fact, proximate cause, and damages. The Court of Appeal's ruling and the precedent set by it are also discussed. The article is relevant to business law students and professionals.

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.

Business Law Assignment 4
Question: 2 (b)
The judge disregarded that the boy was negligent by not wearing a helmet. This is
because even if the boy was wearing a helmet, he could have still suffered injuries to his skull
and frontal lobe (Kripke, 2013). The judges’ reasoning was that the boy not wearing the helmet
was ineligible to the other legal facts.
Question: 3
The primary judge in apportionment of negligence responsibility, found the driver to be
fully responsible for the damages and injuries (Barker, 2014). This is because, even if the boy
was partly to blame, the drivers’ lack of care overshadowed the boy’s negligence. Had the driver
cared in the first place for the boys’ safety, the accident could not have happened. The driver was
also a mature adult unlike the young boys to make more informed decisions (Fleming, 2012).
Question: 4
The court of appeal did find neither the driver nor the boy to have broken any statutory road
rules and they weren’t relevant in this case due to the following reasons.
 Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant had initially relied on Rule 244 of statutory road
rules (Kripke, 2013). It is evident both parties were in violation of Rule 244.
 Rule 244 prohibits a person from travelling on a wheeled recreation device. As much as
the boy was guilty, his actions were in agreement with the driver.
 The other reason why the Rule 244 wasn’t considered of a person holding onto a moving
vehicle is because both parties were in agreement (Perry, 2012). The driver was getting

Business Law Assignment 5
information from his co-driver who was his son on how the boys were faring on at the
back. The driver was also checking on the boys through the rear window.
 Contrary the appeal court could have taken Rule 244 into consideration if it wasn’t
agreeable to both parties in breaching (Allen, 2010).
Question: 5
The court of appeal apportioned the boy some blame and reduced his compensation by
10% to make the ruling equitable and just (Feldthusen, 2010). This was due to contributory
negligence by both parties. The boy was also required to be responsible for his own personal
safety. Despite the boy being young and immature at 12 years old, he was reasonably conscious
of the risks involved in skate boarding while holding a moving vehicle without helmet
(Folsom, et. al., 2012). It is still just that the driver got the biggest part of the blame because he is
a mature adult who was in a position of making a better choice.
Question: 6
The reasoning for the Court of Appeal to make the boy to have part of the blame was to
ensure that the ruling was just and fair. The appeal judge reasoned that the boy was old enough
to know that his actions had consequences. This was also more evident in him engaging in a
risky exercise without any protective gear (Beever, 2017).
In the case of negligence the boy was responsible for the following.
 It was the duty of the boy to ensure his safety was guaranteed having agreed to
skateboard behind a moving vehicle. The boy failed in taking responsibility for his
actions.

Business Law Assignment 6
 In the legal aspect of duty, the boy should have taken due diligence in ensuring that he
holds firmly to the moving vehicle. There is no explanation as to why he let go of the
moving vehicle. This can be deduced to be negligence.
 The cause of the damage to himself can also be reasoned to have been occasioned by
him. If he hadn’t been holding the moving vehicle the accident could not have happened
(Barker, 2014).
 The boy was also responsible to have foreseen the consequences of his actions. This is
evident because at 12 years a person is mature enough to know right from wrong.
Question: 7
The Court of Appeal set a precedent in law by ruling that the driver was responsible for the
safe functioning of the vehicle and skitching was not a safe function because of the following
reasons.
 Rule 244 of the statutory road safety prohibits skitching. This is because the driver could
have taken responsibility and declined the boys request to hold on his moving vehicle.
 The precedent set hear is for anyone operating any machine should take full
responsibility (Allen, 2010). This can apply to boats and even vehicles.
 This calls for diligence care to be observed by everyone who has responsibility and
obligation by the rule of law or common sense law (Gallup, 2015).
 Negligence should also be avoided in any given activity if it will result in damages or
injuries as was evident in this particular case.

Business Law Assignment 7
 Proximity to cause should be taken into consideration in delivering duties and
responsibilities. This applies more in cases that may involve children.

Business Law Assignment 8
References
McDonald, B., 2010. Legislative intervention in the law of negligence: The common law,
statutory interpretation and tort reform in Australia. Sydney L. Rev., 27, p.443.
Fleming, J.G., 2014. The law of torts (Vol. 1).Law Book Company for New South Wales Bar
Association.\Barker, K., Cane, P., Lunney, M. and Trindade, F., 2012. The law of torts in
Australia.Oxford University Press.
Kessler, D.P., Summerton, N. and Graham, J.R., 2016. Effects of the medical liability system in
Australia, the UK, and the USA. The Lancet, 368(9531), pp.240-246.
McDonald, B., 2006. The impact of the civil liability legislation on fundamental policies and
principles of the common law of negligence.
Gallup, E.M., 2015. Law and the team physician.Human Kinetics Publishers.
Runciman, W.B., Merry, A.F. and Tito, F., 2013. Error, blame, and the law in health care—an
antipodean perspective. Annals of internal medicine, 138(12), pp.974-979.
Barker, K., 2014. Unreliable assumptions in the modern law of negligence. Law Quarterly
Review, 109(3), pp.461-484.
Perry, S.R., 2012. Protected Interests and Undertakings in the Law of Negligence. The University
of Toronto Law Journal, 42(3), pp.247-317.
Beever, A., 2017. Rediscovering the Law of Negligence.Bloomsbury Publishing.
Feldthusen, B.P., 2010. Economic negligence: the recovery of pure economic loss. Carswell
Legal Publications.

Business Law Assignment 9
Allen, W.T., 2010. Independent Directors in MBO Transactions: Are They Fact or Fantasy?. The
Business Lawyer, pp.2055-2063.
Kripke, H., 2013. The myth of the informed layman. The Business Lawyer, pp.631-638.
Folsom, R.H., Gordon, M.W., Spanogle, J.A., Fitzgerald, P.L. and Van Alstine, M.P.,
2012. International business transactions: a problem-oriented coursebook.
ThomsonReuters.