BUS101 Business Law: Case Study Analysis of Verryt v Schoupp [2015]

This case study delves into the Court of Appeal's decision in Verryt v Schoupp [2015], a case involving a 12-year-old boy injured while riding a skateboard and holding onto a moving car driven by the defendant. The analysis explores the legal elements of negligence and contributory negligence, examining the arguments presented by both the plaintiff and the defendant. The primary judge's initial ruling, the Court of Appeal's doubts, and the ultimate apportionment of liability are discussed. The case highlights the importance of a driver's responsibility to prevent harm, even in the presence of contributory negligence, and the precedent it sets for future negligence cases. The final verdict involved a reduction of ten percent in the damages suffered by the respondent, based on the courts assessment.

Running Head: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW
Answer 1.
Legal element Facts which satisfy the legal element
Negligence The respondent has claimed damages that have been caused
because of the negligence of appellant and the respondent
have started the proceedings regarding this matter against
the appellant. A claim was made by the respondent that
because of the activities of appellant he had to suffer from
injuries.
Contributory Negligence The defendant had taken the defense that because of the
plaintiff's own negligence, the injuries have been affected to
him. There are some points that discuss the contributory
negligence on the plaintiff's part. The first point is he was
riding a skateboard by holding on to the car that was
moving and it was owned by the defendant. The second
point is engaging himself in the activity willingly that is
dangerous. The third point is not taking any kind of
precautions for their own safety and the last point is the
helmet was not worn.
Answer 2.

2BUSINESS LAW
 There was an argument that was made by the defendant that he had to suffer from
injuries by plaintiff and it was caused because of the defendant’s contributory
negligence. An argument was made that the boy was being careless as he was
involved in the actions like is he was riding a skateboard by holding on to the car
that was moving and it was owned by the defendant. He is engaging himself in the
activity willingly that is dangerous. He was not taking any kind of precautions for
his own safety and helmet was not worn by him.
 The defense of contributory negligence was rejected by the primary judge in the
abovementioned case. The statement was given by the primary judge that there
was negligence by the respondent with regards as suspected by respondent. The
primary judge also stated that the injury would have caused even if he had not
worn the helmet as he has suffered the injuries in the front lobe and if he had
worn the helmet then also there was no chance of the reduction to suffer it. The
defendant was more careless and because of that he had suffered the injuries and
it was not questioned by the judge. The plaintiff was unsuccessful to take care of
himself and because of it he had suffered from injuries and it was stated by the
primary judge.
Answer 3.
It was found by the primary judge that boy was liable personally for his own injuries that he is
suffering from. However, he also decided that the driver was responsible totally for the accident
that was caused to the plaintiff. The negligence that was made by the appellant was so extreme
that it overshadowed the contributory negligence made by the plaintiff. Thus, no reason was

3BUSINESS LAW
there to reduce the amount that was claimed by plaintiff as the driver was fully liable for the
accident.
Answer 4.
The court of appeal had a doubt that if the primary judge who was related to the above-
mentioned case, had given a wrongful judgment that no reduction must be there that was to be
given to the respondent. Another statement can be given that none of the parties have relied upon
the Road Rule of Australia for determining the negligence or the contributory negligence. A
person has taken reasonable care or not does not state that whether he has prohibited any kind of
rule or law of the state. The provisions of the contributory negligence reflect the common law
provisions and it states the absence of care of the claimant and it must contribute to injuries that
were suffered by the plaintiff. The compensation that the plaintiff will be getting depends on the
importance of damages that has been caused to the party. It was held by the court of appeal that
the cases of each negligent parties must be observed properly and it must involve all the
circumstances that headed to the accident.
Answer 5.
The court of appeal said that respondent’s conduct must be considered as he was involved in the
activity that carried some risks. The primary judge said that the boy must know about the risk
that this activity had. The proof that was given by the respondent to the court of appeal was
looked properly and it was valued that the skitching act involves danger. Thus, the conclusion
that was taken from the primary judge’s decision is that defendant knew about the risks that were
related to the skitching.
Answer 6.

4BUSINESS LAW
With respect to the situation, it can be said that the liability was on the partially on the appellant
so that it can obey the operations of the safety of the vehicle. It has to be noted that it is
significant on the appellants part to reasonably foresee the results of the harm which any
reasonable person on the in the position of the defendant would do. For the purpose of
addressing the issue of contributory negligence the court took into account the negligence which
was present on the part of the plaintiff but is emphasis was much more on the duty of the
defendant driver. The court of appeal held that appellant was responsible because he could have
prevented the accident and must not have instigated the respondent to involve in that activity. It
is important that the appellant must bear the liability for injuries that have been caused to the
respondent with respect to the subject matter mentioned above. It is also essential that the
liability with respect to the damage must be suffered by respondent. Therefore, there must a
reduction of ten percent in the damages that will be suffered by the respondent. [at 25]
Answer 7
The precedent which have been laid down by the courts in relation future drivers and negligence
is that even if there has been contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, if the negligence
of the driver was extremely gross than it would overshadow the contributory negligence which
have been committed by the plaintiff. The precedent also signifies that it is the responsibility of
the drivers to drive extra carefully when they have knowledge that someone may be hurt by their
actions and they are in a position to prevent the action and not allow it to take place. Allowing
the careless of the plaintiff to proceed is also negligent on the part of the defendant. [at 24]

5BUSINESS LAW
References
Verryt v Schoupp [2015] NSWCA