Tort and Negligence in Business Law

This article discusses Tort and Negligence in Business Law with three examples. It explains the principles of duty of care, objectivity test and but for test. The examples cover unintentional tort, intentional tort and negligence.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
TORT AND NEGLIGENCE
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note

1
BUSINESS LAW
EXAMPLE 1
The subject matter of the case is based on the tort law. According to Canadian Tort
Law, all the matters relating to the wrongful acts or injury affects the physical, emotional or
financial stability of an individual come within the purview of this subject. There are two
main categories of tort such as intentional tort and unintentional tort. The current case forms a
part of the unintentional tort. When it is not reasonably foreseeable that an individual will
suffer harm due to certain acts of other, it will be called as unintentional tort. In this case, the
term standard duty of care does not exist (Barry, 2017). Certain elements are there to decide
the fact whether an act of anyone attracts the provisions of personal injury case. According to
the general principle of Tort law, duty of care should be proved at the first instance. It is to be
assessed whether the person has made any breached to his duty, which was reasonably
foreseeable. Therefore, it could be stated that the harm should be reasonably foreseeable in
nature.
In this case, it has been observed that the pedestrian has violated the red signal
obligation while crossing the road and therefore, it can be stated that the delivery driver did
not cause harm to the person intentionally (Zhang, 2018). However, case will be filed against
the driver; but the effect will be less compared to the intentional torts. Further, another case
of contributory negligence will be charged against the pedestrian, as he has the knowledge
that violating street rule will lead personal injury to him.
EXAMPLE 2
The subject matter of the case is based on negligence, which is a part of Tort Law.
Every person is required to take reasonable care against others and in case of any failure;
penal provision will be applied on him. The principle of reasonable duty of care is based on

2
BUSINESS LAW
the reasonable responsibility of an individual. Every individual has certain legal
responsibility to make a good social interaction that is acceptable in nature. It is their duty to
take all such decision so that the other party will not be harmed due to his acts. He should do
all the acts to avoid any injury or damage caused to others (Kennedy & Sakis, 2017). When a
person has all the knowledge about an act that could cause serious injury to others, it will
become a part of intentional tort. Under Tort law, certain civil obligations have been specified
that the individual should have to be maintained.
In the present case, it has been observed that all the cars were stopped due to red
signal and when the signal become green, one of the cars has not made any change of his
position. However, the car driver had hit another car and caused personal injury to him.
According to the common principle of Tort law, every individual is required to take certain
care to others. No one should cause any harm to others. However, in this case, the delivery
driver has the knowledge that accelerate the car in this condition could lead to serious injury.
Therefore, the damage caused to the other driver is quite reasonable and the driver will be
penalised under the intentional tort crime.
EXAMPLE 3
The subject matter of the case is based on three test of negligence such as the duty
of care, objectivity test and but for test. According to the negligence law of Canada, it is the
duty of every person must deal with due diligence and care. They must not do anything that
harm the personal property or does not made any injury to the person. The principle of duty
of care has been established in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]. According to this, every
person should have to take certain legal responsibilities against others and in case of breach
of duty; the offender should have to face certain penal provision. The second test is
objectivity test and according to this, it is to be finding out that whether the person has

3
BUSINESS LAW
applied his knowledge during commencement of an act (Cohen, 2017). The third test is but
for test. According to this principle, it is to be determined that the injury has been caused but
for the negligence and not otherwise. This principle has been established in Clements v.
Clements, [2012] 2 SCR 181.
In this case, the driver should be more careful while driving, as it is snowy and he
has failed to think like a prudent man and caused injury. The accident has caused but for the
negligent act of the driver and he will be held liable for committing negligence.