Understanding Verryt v Schoupp Case: Business Law Assignment

This Business Law Assignment discusses the Verryt v Schoupp Case and its legal elements, responsibilities, and apportionment of damages. The case involves a skating boy who got injured while holding onto a moving vehicle. The first judge found the defendant fully responsible for the plaintiff's injuries due to his lack of foresight and responsibility. However, the court of appeal apportioned the damages between the boy and the driver, as the boy was aware of the risks and didn't wear a helmet. The article cites relevant sources to provide a comprehensive understanding of the case.

Business law assignment
Business law assignment
Name:
Professor:
College:
Course:
City/state:
Date:

Business law assignment
Business Law Assignment
Business law assignment
Name:
Professor:
College:
Course:
City/state:
Date:

Business law assignment
Business law assignment
Question: 1
The first judge used the following facts in the Verryt v Schoupp case to determine that
the defendant Verryt was fully responsible for the Plaintiffs’ injuries.
Legal element Facts which satisfy the legal element
Damages/Injuries There was evidence of substantial injuries that the plaintiff
suffered. This injuries the first judge found to be a fully the
responsibility of the defendant (Fleming, J.G., 2014). The
defendant as the driver was fully responsible for the safety of
the vehicle.
Proximate Cause The first judge found the defendant to have not exercised
foresight as a responsible adult and reasoned that his actions
were endangering the skating boys. According to proximity
to cause, injuries were highly to happen.
Cause in Fact The cause of the injuries was because the first driver was the
driver of the skating boys (McDonald, 2010). Had he not
been driving while the boy was holding on his moving
vehicle, the boy would not have been injured.
Responsibility The judge found the defendant after agreeing to the boy’s
skitching request; he should have ensured absolute
responsibility which he didn’t.
Obligation/Duty The first court also found the defendant as an adult, it was his

Business law assignment
duty to ensure the safety of the boys which he didn’t do.
Question: 4
The court of appeal did not consider if either the boy or the driver had broken any
statutory rules of the road because the reasonable care required in this particular case couldn’t be
addressed in matters of rules. According to common law degree of apportionment of
responsibilities in this case should both be boys and the driver agreed to the act that caused the
accident (Fleming, 2014). Both parties were culpable to some degree in apportionment of the
damages. Due to varying interpretations of statutory rules the judge opted not to consider.
Question: 5
The court of appeal decided that the boy should at least bear some blame to make the
judgment fair and just (Kessle, 2016). This is because during the cross examination, the boy who
is 12 years old clearly understood he was engaging in a risky exercise. The boy was also
responsible for his personal safety by wearing a helmet which he didn’t.
The appeal court in apportioning responsibilities also found that the boy was aware that
he could lose balance while skitching. Despite being assumed that the boy felt comfortable
skitching because he was in the presence of an adult, who is was familiar with. The ten percent
apportionment of responsibility was justifiable.

Business law assignment
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