University Law Assignment: Civil Liability and Negligence Analysis

This assignment analyzes a case of negligence within the Law of Tort, focusing on the scenario of Minh's actions leading to Van's injury. The analysis applies the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) to determine Minh's liability. It identifies the key issue as whether Minh can be held liable for Van's injury due to negligence. The assignment outlines the essential elements of negligence: duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages, referencing relevant legal precedents like Donoghue v Stevenson, Vaughan v Menlove, Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital, and The Wagon Mound no 1. The application section assesses Minh's actions, concluding that he breached his duty of care by switching off the lights, leading to Van's injury, and thus is liable for damages. The conclusion states that Van can claim medical expenses from Minh. The assignment demonstrates a clear understanding of negligence principles and their application in a real-world scenario, providing a well-structured and reasoned legal analysis.

RUNNING HEAD: LAW OF TORT
Law of Tort
Name of the student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
LAW OF TORT
Issue:
The issue, in this case, is whether Minh can be held liable for Van’s injury.
Rule:
Essential elements of negligence:
When a person acts or tends to act in an uncaring way or carelessly due to which an injury can be
caused to another individual under the lawful principle causing ‘negligence’(Findlaw, 2019). The
person acting carelessly will be held liable legally if any harm is caused, which is foreseen. The
law of negligence was developed or enforced in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932 AC
562]. A claim of negligence can be held successful if the claimant can prove:
 A duty of care has been owed by the defendant
 If there is a breach of duty by the defendant
 If any damage is caused by ant breach of duty
 The damage caused should not be too remote
Duty of care:
When a claim of negligence is assessed, the first matter to look about is whether the defendant
owed any duty of care legally over the plaintiff. In a few circumstances, the relation between the
defendant and the plaintiff creates a legal duty of care.
Breach of duty:
The second matter to look about is whether any breach of duty has taken place for the cause of
doing something to a ‘prudent person who is reasonable’ would do in same circumstances(E-

2
LAW OF TORT
lawresources.co.uk, 2019). The term ‘prudent person who is reasonable’ means how an average
person will act responsibly in any situation according to the legal standard. A similar case of
Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 467 explains clearly the idea of breach of duty.
Causation:
The third matter to look about is the defendant negligence harmed the plaintiff, and it has to be
proved that due to the negligible action of the defendant the plaintiff has suffered from an injury
which is foreseen. A similar case which clearly explains the causation is Barnett v Chelsea &
Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428.
Damages:
The final matter to look about is the whether a person has been injured due to the negligence of
someone else a legal claim can be made claiming the medical bill required for the treatment of
the injured person. A similar case of The Wagon Mound no 1 [1961] AC 388.
Application:
In the given scenario, Minh has performed negligence due to which injury has been caused to
Van. According to the essential elements of negligence, there is a breach of duty taken place by
Minh. Also, there is another element that can be taken into consideration is the damages. Van
was physically injured due to the action of Minh. In this case, Minh has switched off the light of
the rooms, deliberately knowing that it can cause harm to any person enters that room. Van
entered the room unknowingly and injured himself due to the negligence of Minh. If the lights
would have been the switch, Van could save himself from the injury.

3
LAW OF TORT
Conclusion:
Thus it can be concluded that Minh can be held liable for Van’s injury and Van can claim the
medical bill from Minh as a claim of negligence.

4
LAW OF TORT
Reference:
E-lawresources.co.uk. (2019). Negligence. [online] Available at:
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Negligence.php [Accessed 20 Aug. 2019].
Findlaw. (2019). Proving Fault: What is Negligence? - FindLaw. [online] Available at:
https://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/proving-fault-what-is-negligence.html [Accessed 20 Aug.
2019].
Stickley, A.P., 2016. Australian torts law. LexisNexis Butterworths.
Okrent, C., 2014. Torts and personal injury law. Nelson Education.