Business Law: Negligence Analysis in Delivery Scenarios - Tort Law

This assignment presents a case study analyzing negligence in business law, focusing on delivery scenarios. It examines three examples involving a delivery truck driver and potential negligence claims. The first scenario involves a pedestrian hit by the truck, analyzing duty of care, breach, causation, and foreseeability, concluding the driver is not liable. The second scenario explores a rear-end collision due to driver impatience, determining the delivery driver is liable for breaching their duty of care. The third scenario involves an accident during a snowstorm, invoking the 'act of God' defense, absolving the driver of responsibility. The analysis references relevant legal cases and principles to support its conclusions. Desklib provides access to similar solved assignments and past papers for students.

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

1
BUSINESS LAW
Example 1
Issue
The issue in the given example is that the delivery truck driver had to suddenly brake
for a pedestrian yet could not avoid hitting him, for he was walking when the green light was
on and the truck driver had his right of way at that point of time. It is to determine whether
the pedestrian will be able to prove his claim of negligence against the truck driver for hitting
him.
Law
A case of negligence depends on certain requisites which establish the fact that
whether the claim made by the claimant is just and reasonable as held in the Donoghue v
Stevenson [1932] AC 562. The requisites are:
1. Duty of care
2. Breach of such duty
3. Causation
4. Foreseeability
The claimant must prove that the defendant or the tortfeasor had a duty of care
towards him and such duty of care has not been carried out, hence there is a breach of such
duty. It is then needs to be proved that the breach of such duty of care that has caused certain
harm, injury or loss to the claimant. The injury or loss caused to the claimant must be the
direct result of the breach of duty of the defendant; any other cause of such injury shall not be
accepted in order to maintain the claim for negligence (Zipursky, 2014). In addition, the
foreseeability of the incident that led to the breach of contract is also tested in order to
establish that it was barely possible to foresee that such an incident could bring an injury or
loss to the claimant. However, the defendant always has certain defences that could save him
from the allegation of negligence brought in by the claimant.

2
BUSINESS LAW
Application
In the given case, pedestrian could bring in charges of negligence against the delivery
truck driver by alleging that he did not carry out his duty of care towards a pedestrian who
was crossing the road while the driver was passing by the road. The pedestrian being the
claimant needs to prove that the driver had a duty of care towards him which he has breached
by hitting the pedestrian. He could also allege that the injuries sustained by him is the cause
of the breach of duty to drive carefully by the truck driver. However, the truck driver could
establish the fact that the pedestrian was crossing the road while the green light was on and
therefore it was not foreseeable that he could hit him at that point of time.
Conclusion
Therefore, the pedestrian will not be able to prove his claim of negligence against the
truck driver for hitting him.
Example 2
Issue
In the given case, the issue is to determine whether the delivery driver would be held
liable for hitting the vehicle in front of him in agitation when that vehicle was not moving
ahead after the green light came up.
Law
The basic rule of negligence states that everyone must take certain reasonable care
towards one another in order to avoid injury. Reasonable care varies from time to time and
place to place, along with the varying relationship between people, thereby making a conduct
wrong and negligent for one but right and non-negligent for another. It is the duty of a person
to provide reasonable care to another in case the other person is in such a position that he
requires or deserves certain level of care from such person, for he bears a duty of care and
responsibility towards him. For example: a driver driving a car has a duty of care towards the

3
BUSINESS LAW
fellow drivers and pedestrians who might be passing by at the same of time as the driver, and
therefore the driver should drive responsibly and with care so that he does not injure anyone
around. In case he injures someone while driving, he would breach his duty of care towards
such other person and shall be held responsible for the injuries sustained by him. However,
the defendant is always provided with certain defences against the allegation brought by the
claimant, yet he must prove his innocence by putting forward the consent or contributory
negligence of the claimant pertaining to such injury as held in Butterfield v. Forrester, 11
East. 60, 103 Eng. Rep. 926.
Application
In this case, the delivery driver had hit a vehicle ahead of him for it was not moving
even though the signal light had turned green, for he was agitated and felt impatient. Even
though the signal light had turned green, the delivery driver was wrong to have hit the vehicle
ahead of him, for he had a duty of care to act responsibly and with reasonable care towards
his fellow drivers. In such circumstance, the delivery driver should have inquired as to why
the vehicle was not moving and whether the driver of the vehicle needed any help with the
car, instead of hitting him for not moving ahead. The delivery driver has clearly breached his
duty of care and therefore, could be held responsible for the injuries sustained by the driver of
the vehicle. The delivery driver, in this case, cannot cite the defence of contributory
negligence of the driver of the vehicle for he had a choice of not hitting the vehicle and
simply wait for the vehicle to move ahead after a while. Even though he states that he was in
a hurry for work, still he cannot justify the fact that his actions were a repercussion of
agitation for being kept waiting by the vehicle.
Conclusion
Therefore, the delivery driver would be held liable for hitting the vehicle in front of
him in agitation and he shall be asked to pay damages to the injured driver.

4
BUSINESS LAW
Example 3
Issue
The issue is to determine whether the delivery driver should be held responsible for
the damaging the property and injuring the employees of the corner store, for his truck slided
off due to severe snow storm.
Law
The basic rule of negligence states that everyone must take certain reasonable care
towards one another in order to avoid injury. A person having a duty of care towards another
must adhere to it and any violation of adherence to such duty would result to its breach,
giving rise to bearing the liability of such breach of duty that subsequently causes certain
injury or loss to a person. However, in most cases, the defendant is offered with certain
defences, like act of God, contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk. As per
the defence of act of God, the defendant was unable to resist the breach of duty of care due to
incidents like natural calamity as it could not be foreseen or predicted as held in Tennant v.
Earl of Glasgow (1864 2 M (HL) 22).
Application
In this case, the delivery driver slided off the road and crashed into the corner store
during a severe snow storm. Here, the delivery driver did not breach his duty of care of
driving responsibly willfully, but by way of the unfortunate incident of the severe snow storm
which is an act of God that is a natural calamity which cannot be avoided or resisted by
human effort or force. Even though the driver had a duty of care and he was the reason
behind the injury and loss sustained by the corner store and its employees, yet he cannot be
held responsible for breaching such duty of care for his actions were entirely guided by the
act of God or natural calamity.
Conclusion

5
BUSINESS LAW
Therefore, delivery driver should not be held responsible for damaging the property
and injuring the employees of the corner store for he was helpless due to the severe snow
storm and thus could not avoid the adverse consequence.

6
BUSINESS LAW
References
Butterfield v. Forrester, 11 East. 60, 103 Eng. Rep. 926
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Tennant v. Earl of Glasgow (1864 2 M (HL) 22)
Zipursky, B. C. (2014). Reasonableness in and out of Negligence Law. U. Pa. L. Rev., 163,
2131.