MGMT1601 Tort Assignment: Analysis of Negligence in Brandon's Case

This report analyzes a tort law assignment concerning a case between Brandon and Hoof Hearted Adventures Ltd. The report delves into the essential elements of negligence, including duty of care, standard of care, damages, and causation, applying these principles to Brandon's situation. It examines the legal principles involved, such as the Donoghue v. Stevenson case, to establish a framework for understanding negligence. The report identifies the parties involved and discusses the specific breaches of duty by Hoof Hearted Adventures, particularly regarding the safety of their premises. It also explores potential defenses for the company, such as contributory negligence and volenti non fit injuria. Furthermore, the report outlines the damages Brandon could claim, including loss of earning efficiency and personal injury, while also highlighting important pieces of evidence. Finally, the report concludes that Brandon is entitled to damages for his losses and that Hoof Hearted Adventures may have defenses based on Brandon's actions.

MGMT1601 Tort Assignment
Tort Assignment Version 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
The parties and the legal principles involved in this case...............................................................3
the essential elements of a negligence action in relation to Brandon’s case...................................3
Duty of care.................................................................................................................................3
Standard of care...........................................................................................................................4
Damages......................................................................................................................................4
Causation.....................................................................................................................................4
Defences for Hoof Hearted Adventures..........................................................................................4
Damages that Brandon could claim.................................................................................................4
Important witnesses or pieces of evidence......................................................................................5
References........................................................................................................................................6

INTRODUCTION
A civil wrong which is rephrased by law as an award of damages but the same does not
comprises breach of contract can be referred as Tort (Yates, 2015.). The above definition is too
broad and comprises all the wrong acts and breaches inclusive of restitutions, breach of trust etc.
Present report revolves around the case of Brandon and Hoof Hearted Adventure Ltd in order to
ascertain the party in fault and damages regarding same. Further, defence available to another
party have been also discussed.
THE PARTIES AND THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES INVOLVED IN THIS
CASE
The parties involved in the case were Brandon and Hoof Hearted Adventures Ltd. The legal
principles involved in the case werethe duty of care, the standard of care, damage and causation.
Negligence arises when an individual facesinjury or loss due tothe carelessnessof another person
(Cooter&Porat, 2015).This can be explained through a significant case on Western Law that is
Donoghue v. Stevenson case.The present case is understandable with Donoghue v. Stevenson
case; the case scenario took place in Paisley, Scotland in the year 1928. While visiting a store;
ginger beer bottle was offered to Ms May Donoghue by her friend (Greene, 2017). After the
consumption, it was found that the bottle contained a decomposed snail. With the consumption,
she fell ill and filed a case against the David Stevenson (ginger beer manufacturer). £500 for the
total damaged was claimed by her in the higher civil court of Scotland, but she was not capable
of suing Stevenson for the breach, because of the reason that the bottle was not purchased by her
(Levine, Vetri, Vogel & Gassama, 2016). The final decision by the court of appeal held that
Stevenson was fully responsible for the well-being of its consumers, but Stevenson died before
case finalization and Donoghue was provided compensation with reduced damage
amount(Reynolds &Kozub, 2017).

THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A NEGLIGENCE ACTION IN
RELATION TO BRANDON’S CASE
There are four elements of negligence are explained in support with Brandon’s case as follows:
Duty of care
It can be said that it was the duty Hoof Hearted Adventures Ltdto keep their area safe and
secured to prevent any injury of visitors. In present case, the duty of care is that Hoof Hearted
Adventures Ltd. must not ignore the rocky area and must have improvised the surface on their
property by removing the rocks. They should not delay this severe aspect, as this only was the
reason due to which Brandon faced a lot of damage.
Standard of care
The breach of duty is done by Hoof Hearted Adventures Ltd., as they delayed the change of
surface area which caused harm to Brandon. Due to same it is believed as a breach is done by the
company, as even after knowing that this area can cause damage, they did not repairit due to time
constraints. It can be considered that aftermath the accident; it was held that equipmentwere also
cracked, clearly showing the negligent behaviour of the company.
Damages
The damages which were faced by the Brandon is that he suffered from a concussionfrom the
headstrike, and his right wrist and left leg were severely damaged and broken. By this accident,
he would not be able to return to work, as he was a mechanic and a golf player before. It can also
be said that he also suffered from depression due to the injury, acknowledging that he would
never be able to play golf and work as a mechanic.
Causation
In this cited case, the occupier liability act provision will be applied and subjected on the
occupier as a duty of care(Mulheron, 2016). It is because it was the duty Hoof Hearted
Adventures to keep their property safe while eliminating all those aspects which can be
damaging.

DEFENCES FOR HOOF HEARTED ADVENTURES
Hoof Hearted Adventures might have the defence that is contributory negligence. By using this
defence, the occupier might state that the injury was also caused by their own actions under the
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, as he did not read the agreement. Further,
defence of volentinon-fitinjuriais also applied as he voluntarily put himself in a situation where
there was the possibility of injury by riding the horse without any assistance (Goldberg, Sebok &
Zipursky, 2016)
DAMAGES THAT BRANDON COULD CLAIM
The damages that can be claimed by Brandon are the loss of earning efficiency in the future and
damages for personal injuries. Further, the court will decide how much amount or compensation
is to be paid by the Hoof Hearted Adventures to the Brandon by considering both the aspects of
contributory negligence (Brandon) by and negligence by (Hoof Hearted Adventures)
IMPORTANT WITNESSES OR PIECES OF EVIDENCE
Five significant pieces of evidence are enumerated as below:
 Contributory negligence behaviour of Brandon is one the significant evidence as he did
not read the agreement. As, it was the responsibility of Brandon to read the agreement
and must not ride the horse without assistance.
 He did not take assistance while riding the horse which leads to the defence of volentinon
fit injuria as he voluntarily put himself in a situation where there was the possibility of
injury.
 Hoof Hearted Adventures even after knowing that the rocky surface can damage an
individual, but they ignored and did not change it due to time constraint.
 They delayed the repairing and change due to time constraints.
 It was also held that their equipment and tools were cracked and broken.

CONCLUSION
It can be concluded from above discussion that as Brandon is the party who has suffered the loss,
thus the same will have to reimburse the damages relating to personal injuries and loss relating to
earning efficiency in future. However, Hoof Hearted Adventures can make defensive action on
the basis of variants relating to negligible contribution.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Cooter, R., &Porat, A. (2015). Disgorgement Damages for Accidents. The Journal of Legal
Studies, 44(2), 249-276.
Goldberg, J. C., Sebok, A. J., &Zipursky, B. C. (2016). Tort Law: Responsibilities and Redress.
Wolters Kluwer law & business.
Greene, B. (2017). Optimize Tort Law. Routledge.
Levine, L. C., Vetri, D., Vogel, J., &Gassama, I. J. (2016). Tort law and practice. Carolina
Academic Press.
Mulheron, R. (2016). Principles of tort law. Cambridge University Press.
Reynolds, T., &Kozub, P. (2017). Risk: Has your negligence caused a loss?. LSJ: Law Society of
NSW Journal, (39), 80.
Yates, A. R. (2015). Legal Fundamentals for Canadian Business. Simon Fraser University.
Fourth Edition.