Project on Tort of Negligence: Samantha's Injury and Bank's Liability

This project analyzes the tort of negligence, focusing on the concepts of duty of care and liability. It examines a scenario where Extortionate Plc is potentially liable for Samantha's injury, considering the application of tort law principles. The project explores the ethical considerations a bank owes to the public, emphasizing the importance of maintaining safe premises and resolving customer issues promptly. Furthermore, it outlines possible defenses for Extortionate Plc, referencing relevant legislation such as the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, and the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The analysis considers the role of negligence, the right of injured parties to seek compensation, and the importance of providing a safe environment for customers. The project utilizes legal precedents and statutory frameworks to assess the bank's responsibility and potential legal outcomes.

TORT OF
NEGLIGENCE

Project 1...........................................................................................................................................3
1. Explaining the meaning of Tort and Duty of the care.............................................................3
2. In accordance to the doctrine of the tort, stating that whether Extortionate Plc is accused for
Samantha’s injury........................................................................................................................4
3. Presenting the ethical considerations that is owed by bank towards public............................4
4. possible defense for Extortionate Plc......................................................................................5
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

Project 1
1. Explaining the meaning of Tort and Duty of the care
Tort is counted as an act or the omission which gives rise to an injury or the harm to any
other person and amount to civil wrong for which the courts imposes the liability. In this context,
injury is described as invasion of legal right while harm indicates loss or the detriment in the fact
that an individual is suffering (Bang and Holle, 2019). The foremost objective of the tort law is
to facilitate a relief to the injured parties for the harm that is been caused by the others, to the
imposed liability on the parties who is responsible for harm and deterring other from committing
the harmful practices or acts. Torts could shift burden of the loss from an injured party to a party
who is at the fault or is better suited in bearing burden of loss.
A party that is seeking redress through the tort law would ask for the damages in form of
the monetary compensation. Less common type of remedies involves restitution & injunction.
The boundaries with respect to this tort law is defined by the common law and the statutory law
in terms of interpreting language of the statues, having wider latitude to determine which actions
must be qualify as the legally cognizable wrongs, that defenses might override any of the given
claim & an appropriate measure of the damages.
Duty of care is the mechanism that is used in law of tort for determining when the person
might be liable. Reasonable foresee-ability of the physical harm would create duty but the
restrictions exist in case of the economic loss, unusual harms and the nervous shock. This
concept is found as useful in separating & explaining cases of the non-liability where there exists
a mistake or an error which causes loss to plaintiff yet there is no any liability. Law relating to
duty of care is applied on the persons who mainly import produces, keep, carry or dump the
waste and the waste brokers.
It is the obligation that takes into account all the measures which are reasonable among
the other things for preventing an unlawful waste management, preventing escape of the waste
and ensures that the waste is transferred to authorized person (Turton and Kyd, 2019). Failure in
meeting or paying the duty is been counted as the criminal offence in the eyes of law.

2. In accordance to the doctrine of the tort, stating that whether Extortionate Plc is accused for
Samantha’s injury
In the common law, tort is the civil wrong which unfairly causes someone else in
suffering the harm or loss resulting in legal liability for person who commits tort act. Although it
has been identified that crimes might be torts, cause behind a legal action not necessarily means
as crime because harm might be because of negligence. The Victim of harm could recover their
loss in terms of damages in the lawsuit. For the purpose of prevailing, plaintiff in lawsuit is
called as injured party who needs to prove that the breach of the duty that is either with an action
or the lack of action was been legally recognizable as the cause of harm (Ben-Shahar and Porat,
2016). As per the doctrine, legal injuries do not limits to the physical injuries but also involves
economic, emotional, reputational injuries etc. Torts include varied types of topics that are auto
accidents, defamation, false imprisonment, copyright infringement, product liability etc.
Most of the torts resulted as of negligence, law of tort also recognizes an intentional tort
within which the person had acted intentionally in the manner that causes harm to another
person. Along with this, when it come up to the product liability, courts have developed a
doctrine of strict liability for the torts that arises from the injury which is caused by use of
company’s services and products. Under the strict liability, injured parties do not have to prove
that the firm was negligent for the purpose winning claim for the damages (Canor, Gidron and
Zandberg, 2016). Thus, in accordance to the doctrine of tort, it could be stated that Extortionate
Plc is Liable for Samantha’s injury as physical injury is caused to her due to their negligence and
it had happened before also so they seems as liable.
3. Presenting the ethical considerations that is owed by bank towards public
The bank should seek for exercising ethical ruled for the particular conditions towards an
injured party. The party who had suffered the loss that has been caused because of the other
party’s negligence has right to sue for the damages in order compensate against the harm caused
to them. Such loss might include harm to the property, economic loss, physical injury and
psychiatric illness. With respect to ethical considerations that the bank must take towards public
includes taking due care of them in the premises and resolving their problem quickly (Henderson
Jr, 2017). The premises should be maintained in such a manner that the public who visit does not

causes any kind of physical harm. Thus, a reasonable care must be exercised by bank and must
pay for the damages against the physical harm caused to public due to their negligence or at their
premises.
4. possible defense for Extortionate Plc
As per the duty of care, which is the legal obligation in order to make sure that the safety
of well- being of others. Under this Extortionate Plc is liable to take proper care of the customers
because there were many customers who raise against the company because they all felt down,
but none of them get any care and action. On the other side, as per the Health and Safety at Work
Act, 1974 which also lays down the wide range of duties on the employers. Under this act, it is
the duty of the premises to take proper care of their employees as well as their customers
(Steinemann, 2018). In the case of Samantha, who fell down while leaving the bank and that is
why broke her wrist and injured her hands. Therefore, with the help of this act, anyone can take
action against the bank, because the CCTV also proves that the person fell under the premises.
So it is the duty of the company to take proper care and make sure that proper care is to be
provided to their customers if they get injured within a premises.
On the other side, she have a different link to the banks social media account which there
were lots of client who claim the similar injuries and if the customer have proof against the
company, then he may fire a case and as a result, proper action is also taken (Deku, Kara and
Molyneux, 2016). In addition to this, as per the manual handling operations Regulations 1992,
which stated that provided the risk assessment so the chances of the injury is reduced and if the
same is happen within the premises, it is the duty of the company of take proper care and bearthe
define amount of treatment as describe under the law or policies.
Beside this, with the help of Consumer Protect Act, 1987 which stated that customer may
claim the compensation against the producer of a defective product and if they got any personal
injury in the company, they also have a right to ask for the compensation (Kelly, 2018).if the
firm is ignored then they may file a case and as a result, quote firm has claim give amount in the
form of penalty with the compensation with extra charges. Therefore, through this act, Samantha
and other people take an advantage in order to protect themselves.

As per the negligence, it is also stated that when someone injures and cause a loss to
another because of their careless behavior, then the person have a right to take action against
them. Under this situation, Samantha and other people who injured in Extortionate Plc may find
a solicitor who provide legal advice and then they can take action because they have a proofs
which also help them to win the case and as a result, it will help to get them justice and fight
against Extortionate Plc as well.

REFERENCES
Books and journal
Bang, A. and Holle, M. L., 2019. Making Legal History: State Liability for Negligence in
Climate Change. Copenhagen Business School, CBS LAW Research Paper. pp.19-11.
Ben-Shahar, O. and Porat, A., 2016. Personalizing negligence law. NYUL Rev. 91. p.627.
Canor, I., Gidron, T. and Zandberg, H., 2016. Litigating Human Rights Violations Through Tort
Law: Israeli Law Perspective. In Damages for Violations of Human Rights (pp. 193-215).
Springer, Cham.
Deku, S.Y., Kara, A. and Molyneux, P., 2016. Access to consumer credit in the UK. The
European Journal of Finance. 22(10).pp.941-964.
Henderson Jr, J. A., 2017. Learned Hand's Paradox: An Essay on Custom in Negligence
Law. Calif. L. Rev. 105. p.165.
Kelly, C., 2018. Consumer reform in Ireland and the UK: Regulatory divergence before, after
and without Brexit. Common Law World Review. 47(1).pp.53-76.
Steinemann, A., 2018. Fragranced consumer products: sources of emissions, exposures, and
health effects in the UK. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health. 11(3).pp.253-258.
Turton, G. and Kyd, S., 2019. Causing controversy: interpreting the requirements of causation in
criminal law and tort law. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly. 70(4). pp.425-444.