University Law of Torts: Case Analysis and Legal Implications Report

This report provides a detailed analysis of two case studies within the realm of tort law. The first case examines contractual obligations, focusing on implied and innominate terms, breach of contract, and the potential for compensation. It explores the duties of parties involved in a construction projec...Read More

Law of Torts

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
QUESTION 1..................................................................................................................................1
QUESTION 2..................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................8

INTRODUCTION
In English Law, tort law governs implicit civil responsibilities that individuals owe in
relation to one another in against to the accountabilities that are included in the contract. Such
law and legislation is highly significant which in turn provides high level of assistance in
offering compensation to the innocent party for the loss or damages suffered. In other words, it
can be stated that tort law implies for the civil wrong by the tortfeasor which in turn resulted into
harm to another. The present report is based on different case situations which will provide
deeper insight about the extent to which concerned or innocent party can demand for
compensation in against to defendant.
QUESTION 1
Overview of the case situation: Given case situation presents that John, director of
construction company, took decision in relation to the redecoration of building. For this purpose,
John contacted to Chris who agreed to do the work pertaining to redecoration for £60000
respectively. In this, John made payment of £10000 in terms of advance and agreed in relation to
paying the remaining balance on the satisfactory completion of work. However, John made plan
in relation to visiting America and for managing business during the period of six months John
appointed new project manager namely Peter. In this, Peter agreed to work from 1st June on the
basis of the aspect that during the six month period her will not work for another construction
company.
Issues: Considering the cited case scenario, it can be depicted that the main issue is to
assess the legal position of John in against to or respect of Chris and Peter. Moreover,
irrespective of the contractual terms and conditions Peter said that he will not work for another
company. In contrast to this, after some time Peter wrote a letter to John and said that he has
offered with a better job by the rival company. In this regard, issue is to identify whether John is
in position to get compensation through suing on Peter. Along with this, on the completion of

redecoration work, John complained that that it is below the level of standard. Hence, due to
such un-standardized John said Chris in relation to repainting walls and refused to pay remaining
money. Thus, in this, the main issue is to ascertain the level of breach and identify the action that
John needs to undertake in against to defendant parties.
Laws: Legislation and rules that highly suit to the situation of John, Peter and Chris are
enumerated below:
Implied terms: In English Law, implied terms imply for the default or mandatory rules
that supplements a contractual agreement. Implied terms make the business deal highly effective
and help in ensuring fairness between the parties or to hardship. In the context of employment
contract, there are some implied terms with which both employer and employee needs to comply
such as:
 Duty in relation to maintaining mutual trust and confidence: On the basis of this,
employer and employees are responsible for maintaining mutual trust and confidence.
Hence, both the entities do not act or perform activities that damage their relationship
(Implied terms in the employment contract, 2017).
 Duty of fidelity: Such duty refers that employees are obliged to work faithfully in the
interest of employer.
In the concerned case, irrespective of having contract in relation to working for the period of
six months Peter has joined another company. By assigning responsibilities to Peter, John went
to America for the purpose of meeting with family members. In this, by breaking trust, Peter
wrote a letter to John he is joining another rival company rather than continuing with his firm.
Innominate terms: Under English law, contractual terms can be presented in the form of
condition, warranty and innominate terms. Through the case of Hong Kong fir shipping,
innominate terms are created which in turn includes both condition and warranty. Hence, for
getting compensation in the case of breach, it is highly required to determine which kind of terms
breached for establishing the remedy available. Moreover, level of compensation highly varies as
per the terms of contract. Referring the case Poussard v Spiers (1876) it can be stated that when
condition is breached then innocent party is entitled to either end the contract or claim for the
damages suffered. On the other side, case of Bettini v Gye presents that warranties are minor

terms which are not considered as central to the existence of contract (Innominate terms, 2017).
Hence, if warranty is breached then innocent party can only claim for the damages but not
entitled to end the contract.
Application: By doing assessment, it has identified that case laws of implied terms are
applied on the situation of John and Peter. In accordance with the presented case situations both
John and Peter agreed on the terms and conditions. Though, after discussion, Peter agreed that he
will not do any job in another construction company within the period of six months.
Considering the case of Bettini V Gye (1876), it can be stated that John can take legal action in
against to Peter and demand for the compensation (Case laws pertaining to the terms of contract,
2017). Moreover, as per the predetermined conditions Peter is obliged to work as an employee in
the construction company owned by John. From evaluation, it has found that some implied
terms are highly applied terms are applicable on the situation of John and Peter. In accordance
with the implied terms both employers and employees have duty in relation to maintaining
mutual trust and confidence.
Further, implied terms also impose duty of fidelity in front of the concerned parties. As
per the legal aspects employees are required to serve the employers faithfully. In other words, it
can be stated that employees may not act in against to the interest of an employer. Hence, as per
the duty of fidelity, it is relevant that employee is contemplating leaving employer and working
for a competitor or setting competitive business. However, as per the contractual terms if
individual leave organization before the period mentioned in the contract then he is obliged to
give compensation to the employer.
Innominate terms are highly applied on the case situation of John and Chris because in
this owner of construction company has included condition that remaining balance or payment
will be made on the satisfactory completion of work. However, when whole work of
redecoration is completed by the Chris, Peter said that it is below the standard. Along with this,
Peter said Chris in relation to repainting the walls and denied to make further payment. In this
regard, referring the warranty aspect of innominate term it can be stated that John can demand
for the compensation but cannot repudiate the contract. Moreover, as per the contractual terms
work has been completed by Chris on time.

Along with this, resources pertaining to time and cost have also been used by Chris for
such contract. Referring the case of Bettini V Gye (1876) it can be stated that on the basis of less
specific terms one cannot repudiate the contract. In the case of Bettini V Gye due to the illness,
plaintiff party failed to attain rehearsals. In this, court gave judgment that work has been done by
the claimant for 15 days. Thus, considering such aspect judgment was given by the court in the
favor of plaintiff. Similar kind of situation occurred in the case of John and Chris because owner
of decorative company did whole work. Hence, as per the case considered for the study it can be
depicted that John is obliged to make payment of remaining balance to Chris. Along with this,
John has right in relation to demanding compensation in form of improving wall or painting.
However, as per such terms John has no right in relation to repudiating contract.
Conclusion: From this case, it can be concluded that John can claim in against to Peter
and demand for the compensation. Moreover, as per the contract Peter is obliged to work for the
period of 6 months. Hence, considering the implied terms of conditions it can be said that Peter
is liable towards John. Besides this, it can be inferred that innominate terms highly suit to the
condition of John and Chris. Moreover, Chris started activities and performed the same during
the specified time. Hence, John can demand for the compensation but has no right in relation to
repudiate the contract. In other words, it can be depicted that John can ask or make claim in
relation to redecorating the building.
QUESTION 2
Summary of the case scenario,
According to the given case, new indoor swimming pool for the public was opened by the
Norford city council. Pool and building were constructed by the McKeown Builders Ltd. Further,
at the first day of opening Timothy, Romeo and Samson visited the pool side without their
parents and they all are at the age of 11 years. The pool was supervised by Vicky and William
who are lifeguards employed by the council. Three of the children were playing in the pool while
Timothy gets bored with the pool and decided to explore. At near the pool, there was a boiler
room which was closed with the warning sign on the door- “Keep Out”. Timothy has ignored the
bore sign and enter into a boiler room and received a severe electric shock at the time when he
groped around the dark. (Gordon, 2013) On the other side, both Romeo and Samson were

enjoying themselves in the pool engaging in energetic activities. Both supervisor William and
Vicky were busy in chatting with each other and do not notice what all the three children were
doing. While playing in the pool Romeo, aiming to splash Samson mistook his jump and landed
on the top of Samson. This lead to Unconscious Samson and Romeo started crying for help.
William runs for helping Samson but slipped on the tiling surround and his arm get broken.
However, Vicky rescued Samson although strictly injured but regained consciousness.
Issues
After analysing it is identified that tort of negligence is applied in the given cases. The
tort of negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by an individual at the hand of another who
fail to take proper care at the time of duty (Lybecker and Watkins, 2015). Negligence referred to
the carelessness which is reflected in the case by Vicky and William and McKeown. There are
many issues in this case which should be considered by McKeown the builder, Vicky and
William and three of the boys with respect to avoiding all such damages and harms. Negligence
of people are included in the case can be demonstrated from the elements of tort of negligence
which are as follows:
 Duty of care: The results of some negligence cases is depending on whether the
defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff (Bates, 2017). A duty of care take place at the
time when law recognised a relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff.
Therefore, as per the given case, there is duty of Vicky and William to take care of
three of the boys who are playing in the pool instead of getting busy in chatting. Due
to their negligence of child serve electric shock while other suffer from injury and
unconsciousness. Along with this, while building a pool and building it is a duty of
McKeown to make sure that they used nonslip tiles so that chance of getting hurt to
anyone can be avoided. Such as if tiles are non slip then William cannot be slipped on
the tiling surround and broke his arm (Stimson, 2016). Apart from this duty of care
also arises from the side of parents as they should not permit their children to visit
pool side alone. Therefore, children who suffer from injury can sue in court as suffer
due to the negligence of supervisor. As under their guidance they got seriously harm
and one of the serve electric shock

 Breach of duty: A defendant is accountable for carelessness at the time when it
breaches the duty that the defendant owes to the plaintiff (Cavico, Mujtaba and
Muffler, 2016). Breach of duty takes place at the time when defendant get failed in
fulfilling a responsibility of taking care of plaintiff due to which harm occurs. In the
given case William and Vicky failed in taking care of the three boys as they were
busy in charring and avoid what the boys are doing. It is their responsibility while
supervising the pool to make sure that all the three children’s do not get involved in
risky activities. But due to their negligence two of the boys suffer from harm
(Williams, 2016).
 Cause in fact: In a negligence case, a plaintiff must prove that offenders action
actually caused the injury (Goudkamp, 2017). It is generally referred to the “but-for”
causation. According to the given case, it is clearly reflected the cause in fact. As
McKeown new that tiles which are at while constructing a pool are slippery and
anyone can slip and suffer from harm. Along with this he also knew that keeping the
electric wire uncover in the room without locking it is also risky. This both action of
McKeown causes harm to both supervisor and children. It is essential for McKeown
to fulfil the reasonability instead of caring out it in negligence way.
 Proximate cause and damages: Proximate cause is related to the possibility of a
offender responsibility in a negligence case (Orchard, 2016).. Therefore, a defendant
is considered in the negligence case for those harms which defendant could foresee
through their actions. On the other side he also used non-slip tiles due to which lead
to hurt William Apart from this, court can able to pay the plaintiff of his or her injury.
This can be monetary compensation for expenses which is medical care or property
repair. In given case, it is clearly demonstrated that McKeown knew very well that
keeping the electric wire open can harm anyone. Although avoiding it and remain it
uncover for longer time cause harm to Timothy at the time when he went in the room
which is darked and touched some wire that are left exposed by McKeown. Further it
also shows that plaintiff have right to sue in court for compensate of damage or injury
that occur due to plaintiff actions. In the given case William, Timothy and Samson
get seriously injured due to negligence. Therefore, William can sue against the
McKeown for getting pay for harm that cause from his actions.

Tort of law
The law of tort is the varied fluctuating body of rights, responsibility, and restorative which
is applied by the courts in the Civil proceeding (Mulheron, 2016). Its role is to provide remedies
relief for those who have suffered from harm or damage from the wrongful action of others. In
the court, anyone can sue if they suffer from damage or harm which is the result of other people
actions. Along with this, there is the possibility for children to sue if they get harm from the
action of others. The tort of negligence elements shows that if the defendant in fulfils any of the
elements then party have right to sue in court and claim for compensation (Davies, 2017).
Damages deliver monetary compensation to the plaintiff for their sufferers. Further damages can
be of different types such as nominal, special and aggravated damages in which tort has been
committed but the victim has suffered no loss (Kubica, 2017).
Therefore, in the given case it clearly shows that children suffer from the serious injury as
one of them suffer due to uncover wire and another one due to the negligence of supervisors.
Therefore, both the children have right to sue in court against supervisor and builder for the harm
which is causes of their action and inaction. On the other side McKeown, William and plaintiff is
highly responsible for their negligence they should be compensated for children for their
wrongdoing.
Conclusion
From the above case, it is summarised that the tort of negligence is a legal wrong because an
individual is suffered at the hand of another who fail to take proper care at the time of duty. As
per the tort of negligence if any person careless way causes a harm to another person under the
legal principle of negligence then a person will be legally liable for the harm and it needs to pay
for. If defendant action seriously harms to the plaintiff, then it has right to sue in court for
compensation of the damages that are caused by his or her action. It is clearly reflecting from the
case that William can sue in court for compensation against the McKeown while at the same
time he is also responsible for breach of duty due to which three of the boys suffer from serious
injury. As per the tort law, it is a responsibility of the defendant to take proper care and be
responsible at the time of duty of taking care of plaintiff. The law of tort is the varied fluctuating
body of rights, responsibility, and restorative which is applied by the courts in the Civil

proceeding. Further, it should not be irresponsible and need to make sure that there action not
harm others and their property.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Bates, J., 2017. How far is the law of tort ready to adapt to driverless cars?.
Cavico, F.J., Mujtaba, B.G., and Muffler, S., 2016. The Tort of Negligence in Employment
Hiring, Supervision, and Retention. American Journal of Business and Society, 1(4), pp.205-
222.
Davies, P.S., 2017. Interpretation and Rectification in Australia. The Cambridge Law Journal,
76(3), pp.483-486.
Gordon, G., 2013. Oil, Water and Law Don't Mix: Environmental Liability for Offshore Oil and
Gas Operations in the UK: Part 1: Liability in the law of tort/delict and under the petroleum
licence. Environmental Law and Management, 25(1), pp.1-11.
Goudkamp, J., 2017. Breach of Duty: A Disappearing Element of the Action in Negligence?. The
Cambridge Law Journal, 76(3), pp.480-483.
Kubica, M.L., 2017. Legal Doctrine on Rylands v. Fletcher: One more time on Feasibility of a
General Clause of Strict Liability in the UK. World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology, International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business
and Industrial Engineering, 10(10), pp.3532-3540.
Lybecker, K.M. and Watkins, L., 2015. Liability risk in the pharmaceutical industry: Tort law in
the US and UK. The Social Science Journal, 52(4), pp.433-448.
Mulheron, R., 2016. Principles of Tort Law. Cambridge University Press.
Orchard, M., 2016. Liability in negligence of the mentally ill: A comment on Dunnage v
Randall. Common Law World Review, 45(4), pp.366-374.
Stimson, C.J., 2016. Hospital Risk Management and the US Legal System: An Introduction to
US Medical Malpractice Tort Law. In Risk Management in Medicine (pp. 69-76). Springer
Berlin Heidelberg.

Williams, T.C., 2016. The American and European Revolutions on Choice of Law in Tort with
Foreign Element: Case Studies for the Practice of Conflict of Laws in Nigeria. International
Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies (IJHCS) ISSN 2356-5926, 2(1), pp.642-660.
Online
Implied terms in the employment contract. 2017. [Online]. Available through: <
https://www.farrer.co.uk/how-we-help/employment-issues/worklife/worklife/dates/2014/7/
implied-terms-in-the-employment-contract/>.
Case laws pertaining to the terms of contract. 2017. [pdf]. Available through:
<https://www.lawteacher.net/PDF/contract-law/Terms%20Cases%201.pdf >.
Innominate terms. 2017. [Online]. Available through: <http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Conditions
%2C-warranties-and-innominate-terms.php >.