MGMT1601 Tort Law: A Case Study on Negligence and Liability

This case study examines a negligence claim involving Brandon Walsh and Hoof Hearted Adventures Ltd, focusing on key legal principles such as negligence, voluntary assumption of risk, and exculpatory clauses. It dissects the essential elements of a negligence action, including duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages, assessing potential defenses available to Hoof Hearted Adventures, such as volenti non fit injuria. The analysis considers the types of damages Brandon Walsh could claim—compensatory, general, and punitive—and references five important legal cases that have shaped the understanding of negligence and liability. Desklib provides access to similar solved assignments and past papers for students.

Running head: QUESTIONS 0
business law
FEBRUARY 2, 2019
STUDENT DETAILS:

QUESTIONS 1
1. The parties and legal principles involved in case-
Brandon Walsh and Hoof Hearted Adventures Ltd. Were two parties of Brandon case. In this
case, following principles are applicable-
a. Negligence- in tort, the negligence will not always considered as liability. It is a
breach of legal obligation to consider that results in damages not wished by
defendant to complainant
b. Voluntary assumption of risk doctrine- this principle states that in case where any
person willingly enters in the position in which he or she knows injury may result,
then he or she not able to sue defendant.
c. Exculpatory clause- an exculpatory clause is a clause, which completely forgives
the party from the future negligence.
2. Essential elements of negligence action in Brandon case-
a. Duty of Care: As per tort of negligence, the legal liability of offenders arises at the
failure on their role to accomplish as responsibilities, the payee of which is
complainant. In this way, complainant has to create that they are available to perform
the duty on role of offender towards complainant.
b. Breach of Duty: The other main element that must be established in order to sue is
that there was a breach of earlier mentioned duty by the offender. The offender may
subjectively expose the plaintiff towards the significant risk of loss or injury. He can
also do so by failing to realise the said risk, which any reasonable person in the given
circumstances would have objectively realised. In this way, the breach of duty may be
either objective or subjective (Kennedy & Sossin, 2017).

QUESTIONS 2
c. Causation: The offenders are required to held accountable for the breach of duties.
For that reason, it is required to establish that the damages sustained were just because
of cause of specific actions or blunders on part of defendant.
d. Damages: To claim the damage from offenders, the complainants are required to
prove that breach of duty by defendants caused the losses, or injuries to them.
3. Defences that Hoof Hearted Adventures may have-
Hoof Hearted Adventures may have defences. In volenti non fit injuria, in case where the
complainant has given his free consent to the wrong actions, without any pressure, with
voluntary acceptance of risk, then complainant cannot sue the offender. In this case, Brandon
Walsh signed the waiver in hurry without reading and gave to employee of Hoof Hearted
Adventures. The signed waiver was like free consent of plaintiff. Brandon Walsh was
attentive from the compulsory riding course that employee of Hoof Hearted Adventures was
required to check the equipment. Hoof Hearted Adventures was not so liable. In this way, the
plaintiff cannot sue the defendant (Mulheron, 2016).
4. Kinds of damages that Brandon Walsh could claim-
There are three major kinds of monetary damages that complainant can receive as part of
solving the civil lawsuit-
a. Compensatory damages- Compensatory damages are normally most recognizable
and actual type of damages. It involve the amount for lost income, damage related to
property, and remedial care resulting from misbehaviour of offender.
b. General damages- They are required in aggregation of compensatory damages. The
general damages are not specific damages. They are not so tangible in comparison of
compensatory damages.

QUESTIONS 3
c. Punitive damages- Punitive damages are for punishing the offender for mainly
egregious behaviour.
In this case, the defendant was not liable because plaintiff gave his consent through the
waiver. The plaintiff cannot claim any type of these damages.
5. Five important witnesses-
a. In famous case of Tubemakers of Australia Ltd v Fernandez (1976) 10 ALR 303, it
was held by the court the breach of obligation was the direct reason for harm to
plaintiff.
b. In case of Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 467, it was held by court that it
should be made that there were losses of anticipatable kind, and only then, defender
can be held responsible.
c. The factors of faults have broadly developed under different case laws. In this respect,
Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562 is famous case.
d. The conditions of duty of care were mainly developed in case of Caparo Industries
Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605.
e. Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928) is
milestone case for conversation of contiguous causes and the relationships with
obligation.

QUESTIONS 4
References
Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Kennedy, G. J., & Sossin, L. (2017). Justiciability, Access to Justice and the Development of
Constitutional Law in Canada. Fed. L. Rev., 45(5), 707.
Mulheron, R. (2016). Principles of tort law. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928)
Tubemakers of Australia Ltd v Fernandez (1976) 10 ALR 303
Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 467