BUS101 Business Law Case Study: Torts and Negligence Analysis

This case study examines a legal dispute arising from a motor vehicle accident involving a 12-year-old boy on a skateboard and a driver. The initial court found the driver wholly responsible for the boy's injuries due to negligence. The Court of Appeal reviewed this decision, considering the principles of negligence, contributory negligence, and the duty of care. The court analyzed the facts, including the boy's actions of holding onto a moving car while skateboarding without a helmet, and the driver's responsibility to ensure the vehicle's safe operation. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal determined that while the driver bore the larger part of the responsibility, the boy's contributory negligence meant he was liable for 10% of the damages. This analysis highlights the application of tort law principles in determining liability and remedies in personal injury cases. Desklib offers a variety of resources including past papers and solved assignments to aid students in understanding such complex legal concepts.

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

1BUSINESS LAW
Legal element Facts which satisfy the legal element
Negligence In this regard, the Courts in this regard, relied upon the legal
elements of negligence. It can be observed that a claim for
proceedings was brought against the appellant to the District
Court in order to claim damages for the negligence caused on
the part of the appellant. In this regard, it was claimed by the
respondent that the injuries caused to him were as a result of
the negligent actions on the part of the appellant.
Contributory Negligence It can be observed that though, there was negligence on the
part of the appellant however; the defence was on the part of
the respondent regarding the fact that, the injuries caused to
him was as a result of negligence on his own part. Therefore,
the Court applied the concept of contributory negligence
which states that parties sometimes sustains injuries as a
result of negligence on their own part. In this context, it is
worthwhile to refer here that, the Court relied upon the

2BUSINESS LAW
following points:
 The respondent was riding the skateboard by holding
the moving car.
 The respondent was engaged in such activity which
was as dangerous as it could be identified by any
reasonable person of ordinary prudence.
 The respondent while riding the skateboard did not
comply with the safety standards and therefore
choose to not to wear the helmet.
Lack of Care According to the law of torts, there is a duty of take care on
the part of both the parties. However, in the present case, it
was found by the judge that there was lack of care on the part
of the respondent and therefore he did not take reasonable
care while riding the skateboard as it could have been taken
by any reasonable person of prudent nature.
Duty to take care on the In this regard, it was held by the Judge by considering the

3BUSINESS LAW
part of both the parties. evidences presented before it, that the appellant was
responsible to comply with the safety operations of the
vehicle. There was a duty of care in his part to prevent the
accident from occurring in the first place because he was in
such a position that he could reasonably stop the accident
from occurring. Similarly, in case of the respondent, he
should have complied with the safety measures while skating
and should have used a helmet.
Remedies Lastly, it was held by the Court that, the appellant is at the
obligation to bear the larger part of the injuries caused to the
respondent. However’ the respondent cannot escape liability.
He is at the obligation to bear a small part of the
responsibility caused to him as a result of the accident under
the rule of contributory negligence. It is noteworthy to
mention here that, in relation to the rule of contributory
negligence and as a result of the action of the respondent in

4BUSINESS LAW
his own conduct, he is liable to bear 10% of the damages
caused to him.