University Law Assignment: Tort Law Analysis and Negligence Scenarios

This assignment is a detailed analysis of tort law, focusing on negligence scenarios relevant to business operations. The student addresses three examples involving a delivery driver, examining issues of liability in different situations. The analysis includes identifying the legal issues, outlining relevant laws (such as the duty of care established in Donoghue v Stevenson), and applying these laws to the specific facts of each scenario. The student considers elements such as breach of duty, foreseeability, and defenses like contributory negligence and natural calamity. The assignment provides reasoned conclusions for each example, determining the delivery driver's liability based on the application of tort law principles. The assignment references relevant legal cases and scholarly articles to support the analysis.

Running head: TORT LAW
Law of Tort
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1TORT LAW
Table of Contents
Answer to example 1......................................................................................................2
Answer to example 2......................................................................................................3
Answer to example 3......................................................................................................4
References......................................................................................................................6

2TORT LAW
Answer to example 1
Issue
To determine whether the delivery driver is liable for hitting the pedestrian when he
was crossing the road while the green light was on.
Law
For holding a person liable for negligence, one must prove that the person liable for
the negligence had a responsibility towards such aggrieved party, along with other essential
elements of the tort pf negligence as held in the famous case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
AC 562. In this case, it was stated that a person who has suffered due to an act of negligence
of another must prove that:
1) such other person had a duty of care towards him;
2) such other person breached his duty of care;
3) such breach gave rise to a damage, loss or injury;
4) such breach is the only cause for such damage;
5) the incident was foreseeable.
The person who has a duty of care towards another must adhere to it by fulfilling his
responsibility towards the other. In case such person fails to fulfil it, would result to breach;
damage arising out of such breach would be the liability of the tortfeasor (Zipursky, 2014).
However, it could be defended by the defendant with certain defences that are available under
the law of tort, like contributory negligence or voluntary assumption of risk.
Application
The driver was driving by when the pedestrian suddenly crossed the road with the
signal light being green which signifies that the driver had a right to free passage without
stopping. Usually a driver has a duty of care towards his fellow drivers driving along the
same road along with the pedestrians who crosses the road while the signal light is red. A

3TORT LAW
driver is supposed to follow the traffic rules and thus must show a reasonable care towards
anyone on the road. In case a driver fails to carry out his duty of care in the road, he shall be
held liable for such breach and any injury or loss arising out of his breach of duty of care
shall be the liability of such other person. However, in this case, the driver did not breach his
duty of care as the signal light was green when he hit the pedestrian who crossed the road all
of a sudden. The driver did not breach the traffic rule in this situation. In addition, it could
also be held the driver that the incident was not foreseeable as the pedestrian crossed the road
when he was not supposed to do so. A defence of voluntary assumption of risk could be
stated where it could be held that the pedestrian must have the knowledge that he could be hit
by a passing car as he tried to cross the road while the signal light was green.
Conclusion
Thus, the delivery driver is not liable for hitting the pedestrian when he was crossing
the road while the green light was on.
Answer to example 2
Issue
To determine whether the delivery driver is liable for hitting the vehicle in front of his
truck as the vehicle was not moving even though the signal light was green.
Law
Tort is a civil wrong which takes place when a person who has a reasonable duty of
care towards another fails to adhere to such duty of care, thereby giving rise to an act of
negligence, in an act of negligence, the victim or the claimant suffers a damage, injury or loss
due to such breach of duty of care by the tortfeasor or the defendant. It is to be established
that the claimant has been injured or damaged solely by the act of negligence effected by the
defendant, and none other. In such situation, the defendant shall be made to bear the liability
of the sufferings of the claimant, which could lead to the payment of damages (Robertson,

4TORT LAW
2013). However, it could be defended by the defendant with certain defences that are
available under the law of tort, like contributory negligence, voluntary assumption of risk,
natural calamity, unforeseeability, lack of proximity, et cetera.
Application
In this case, the delivery driver hit the vehicle in front of him for he got agitated as the
vehicle was not moving ahead even though the signal light was green. As a matter of fact
under the law of tort, a driver bears a duty of care towards another fellow driver who is
driving alongside. Here, the delivery driver too had a duty of care towards the vehicle in front
of him; a duty to drive safely and follow the traffic rules as well. Although the traffic light
was green, yet he did not have the right to hit another vehicle for not moving ahead, out of
agitation. In this situation, the delivery driver clearly breached his duty of care towards a
fellow driver who got injured in the accident, thereby giving rise to a liability of a tort of
negligence to the delivery driver.
Here, the delivery driver cannot draw a defence of contributory negligence even
though the vehicle driver did not move when the signal light was green. This can be justified
by the essential element of foreseeability of the defendant regarding the incident or accident
that is causing the breach of duty of care
Conclusion
Thus, the delivery driver is liable for hitting the vehicle in front of his truck.
Answer to example 3
Issue
To determine whether the delivery driver would be held liable for the destruction of
the corner store’s property along with the injuries of the employees of the store because of the
sudden snow storm of severe nature with resulted in the sliding of the delivery truck.
Law

5TORT LAW
Under the law of torts, a person who has a reasonable duty of care towards another
fails to adhere to such duty of care, thereby giving rise to an act of negligence, in an act of
negligence, the victim or the claimant suffers a damage, injury or loss due to such breach of
duty of care by the tortfeasor or the defendant. It is to be established that the claimant has
been injured or damaged solely by the act of negligence effected by the defendant, and none
other. The defendant shall be held responsible for the injury or loss suffered by the claimant.
However, certain defences are available under law of tort which could be used as a
shield of protection by the defendants by which they could establish their innocence.
Defences like contributory negligence, voluntary assumption of risk, natural calamity, et
cetera are some of them (Tilley, 2016).
Application
In this case, the driver did not have control over the situation for he was caught in a
severe snow storm which glided off the truck which then hit the corner store. Here even
though it could be stated that the driver had a duty of care towards the property and people
working at stores along the road, and am act of negligence would breach his duty of care. The
damage sustained by the store and its employees should be vested upon the driver in usual
sense. However, in this case, the driver lost control over the vehicle due to the snow storm
which is a natural disaster.
Here, the delivery driver could protect himself by the help of the defence of act of
God or natural calamity where humans fail to take control of the situation and it is completely
left on the situation to take its course. Had there been no such natural calamity, the driver
would have been made liable for his actions.
Conclusion
Thus, the delivery driver would not be held liable for the destruction of the corner
store’s property along with the injuries of the employees.

6TORT LAW
References
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Robertson, A. (2013). Policy-based reasoning in duty of care cases. Legal Studies, 33(1),
119-140
Tilley, C. C. (2016). Tort Law inside out. Yale LJ, 126, 1320.
Zipursky, B. C. (2014). Reasonableness in and out of Negligence Law. U. Pa. L. Rev., 163,
2131.