An Analysis of Tort of Negligence in Formula Fun Racing Case Study

This report provides a detailed analysis of a tort of negligence case study based on an incident at a Formula Fun Racing (FFMRF) event. The report examines the concept of tort law, specifically focusing on negligence, and its four key elements: duty, breach of duty, causation, and injury. The case involves a racing incident where a driver's actions led to an accident, resulting in injuries and fatalities among spectators. The report identifies various individuals involved, including the driver, spectators, and the FFMRF organization, assessing their respective duties of care and potential breaches. It explores the negligence of the driver, the spectators who disregarded safety warnings, and the engineers and managers responsible for the car's design. The analysis further discusses the application of tort law principles, including the legal remedies available to the injured parties, such as monetary compensation and equitable remedies. The report also touches on the issue of the deceased racer's will and the implications of his solicitor's failure to execute the changes. The report concludes by summarizing the key findings and emphasizing the importance of avoiding negligence to prevent legal complications and ensure the well-being of individuals. This assignment is contributed to Desklib to help students with their studies.

TORT

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................1
Case details..................................................................................................................................1
Tort law and negligence..............................................................................................................2
Remedies available to different individuals................................................................................4
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................5
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................6

INTRODUCTION
Tort is termed as civil wrong and a wrongful act performed by an individual in
intentional or accidental manner and some sort of injury is suffered by another person through
that activity. Torts includes cases that are related to negligence and as well as cases that results in
intentional wrong performed to harm a particular individual. The law of tort is based on four
elements which are: duty, breach of duty, causation and injury. An individual will be liable under
tort law when act which leads to breach of duty is performed and which also results in some sort
of injury to plaintiff (Bang and Holle, 2019). Their are mainly three types of of torts that are: tort
of negligence, strict liability and intentional torts. In this project report a detailed elaboration will
be provided on the tort of negligence. A case study is provided which involves different
individuals and in some or the other way they shown some negligence and application of tort law
is claimed on them. In this process all the rights, responsibilities, liabilities that are available to
an individual will be discussed in detailed manner.
MAIN BODY
Case details
The Formula Fun Motor Racing Federation (FFMRF) is an organisation body which is
involved in the new sport of Formula Fun Racing. In order to promote this sport Formula Fun
Motor Racing Federation invite the public in the final selection process by which the various
participating teams will select driver they want to select for an upcoming race event.
At Team Audee Aggressor a race battle incurred in two drivers. Marvin Maverick in
order to breach some past records attempts to drive thorough several bends in the course faster
than anyone has before. In this process he misjudge a turn and leads to flip in the car and it
leaves the track and moves towards group of spectators of the first group who were strayed into
an out of bounds area (Bell, 2018). Marvin Maverick manage to escape form the car before it
explores but it reaches to other group spectators (Terence) instantly and setting another (Cynthia)
on fire and killed the first one. The reason for explosion is because the insulation between the
fuel tank and the engine did not withstand the forces involved in the crash. This incident is
because majority of the engineers of the care in agreed to install insulation which is more
stringent. This proposal was supported by the senior managers of the FFMRF as it will be
considerably less expensive for the participating race teams to comply with.
1

The area where the spectators of the first group was standing was beyond the safety
barriers. A clear warning notice was present their and despite of this spectators the group
climbed over the barriers to take a closer look of the racing. A group of 5 spectators suffered
form Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Lorraine who was friend with Cynthia and Francine
wife of Terence present in second group of spectators also got PTSD with the incident.
Terence several months before his death make changes in his will and that are not made
by the lawyer till his death (Iacobucci and Trebilcock, 2016). Their are different forms of
negligence has incurred by individuals at different stages in the provided case and tort of
negligence will help to access these defaults and to take the required steps.
Tort law and negligence
In legal terms negligence is termed or highlighted as failure to perform the basic of care
which a performer as a responsible individual should have in all the situations. It leads to breach
in a legal duty which become a reason for damage. Imposition of law which guides and impose
civil duty on all the individuals of a nation to be followed as termed as Tort law. Blyth v
Birmingham Water Works Co. is one of the famous case law that has incurred for the
negligence. As per this case negligence is defined as the omission to do something which needs
to be performed by a reasonable person or something which need not to be performed is done.
Negligence is characterised in three forms:
 Nonfeasance: It means failure to perform something which a person needs to be
performed. For example- failure to repair a building before it causes some accidents.
 Misfeasance: It means an act of not doing something in proper manner which should
have been performed in certain manner. For example- preparing a car for racing with no
extra safety features which must be present their.
 Malfeasance: It means act of doing something which should not have been performed at
the first place. For example- adding some features to the care which are not allowed to
certain capacity vehicles.
The law of negligence is applied on different individuals in this case and there are certain
claims and defences available to these individuals based on the law (Jackson, 2016). This is
discussed as follows-
Marvin Maverick: He is one of the racer who participated in the race and because he
wants to compete the race before anyone else and set new records he take all the possible
2

chances. In this order he was driving to maximum and the will to set record become the reason
for a wrong judgement for the turn. This leads to flip the care and accident incurred. In this
accident he was injured nominal but spectators who was their in the second group injured and
killed with this act. Here negligence is made by Marvin Maverick because it was his duty to care
towards all the individuals present their. Law of negligence to sports is also applicable but there
are certain exceptions to this law for example- a spectators when hit by a foul ball while setting
in the stands for baseball game then no claim can be made. As all the individuals present there
are aware of this fact that ball can come in stands (Levin, 2017). The same law will be applicable
to this case here Cynthia and Francine both were their in stands and injured with an accident and
it was not an intentional. Claim can be made only if it is proved that Marvin Maverick did not
perform his duty of care.
Spectators of the first group: These are the individuals who are present their to make
their judgement to select a racer for the next race. A particular area is granted to them which is at
certain distance for racing track so that all the precautions form accident can be taken. But
negligence is performed by these spectators as despite of a clear warning they were standing out
to enjoy race with more clear vision. Climbing over the barriers is termed as an intentional
negligence for the group member who were present their. This negligence leads to cause an Post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to five persona and among them 2 persons were 12 year old.
One person suffer for extreme grief for this accident. No one in this group is liable to claim any
sort of damages because negligence was performed by the plaintiff and loss is also suffered by
them.
Formula Fun Motor Racing Federation (FFMRF): This organisation has organised
the whole event and all the fun racing cars were manufactured by the engineers working for this
organisation. On the suggestions made by majority of the engineers and with due consideration
for reduced cost managers took decision to introduce a insulation in the cares which in some
circumstance may leads to danger (Tan, 2018). This is also termed as negligence on the part of
engineers and managers those who has taken final decision in this relation. This act will be
termed as Malfeasance because both managers and engineers has performed something which
need not to be performed. In this case when any form of injury and damages will incur then
imposition of the claim will be made on both of them. The amount of whole injury suffered by
any individual needs to be paid by the FFMRF.
3

A completely another case scenario exists as Terence one of the racer several months
prior to this race initiated to make changes in his will. Shares of Klondike Co. will no longer to
to his wife after his death instead it will be given to his niece Lucy. The solicitor failed to make
these changes and Terence died (Owen, 2018). Now the situation has arisen that to whom these
shares will go. When the whole situation is considered then law that are applicable to property
and claiming of assets after death will be followed. In this case the property or asset will lie to
the person who's name is mentioned in the will. As name of Terence wife is their in the will so
no person other then her can make claim on the shares mentioned in the will. Proposal when
made to make some changes in the will then in that case completion will be made only when the
changes are made to the will.
As there are no changes made to the will till the time Terence died and after his death
actual will be termed as valid and his intention to make changes in the will not be considered
appropriate. So all the shares that belongs to Terence will be provided to his wife and no other
persona will be liable to make claim in the property.
Remedies available to different individuals
In the present case when different parties are facing the issue of negligence that leads to
some severe injuries then in that case some amount of remedies are also available as per tort of
negligence act (Stimson, 2016). Remedies which are available will be based on the form of
damage which is suffered by individuals. Damages like nominal and punitive will be provided
different remedies. Some of the possible remedies are as follows-
Legal Remedies: In this monetary payments are made by the defendant for the purpose
of compensating to the plaintiff for all the loss suffered. Amount of damages are calculated on
the basis of loss suffered by the victim. As FFMRF Will be liable to make all the payment for
loss suffered by all the victims that got injured their.
Restitutionary Remedies: Through these remedies victims are restored to a position
which is closed to normal before the injury.
Equitable Remedies: When monitory damages are not enough to restore the victim then
these remedies are available. For example- helping a victim by preventing from further injuries
due to some physical and mental harassment.
4

CONCLUSION
From the above project report on Tort law of negligence it has been concluded that an act
which may leads to some damages to other due to some ignorance is termed as breach of tort
law. This is one of the civil law used in the day-to-day life of each individual. In order to avoid
any form of legal compliance negligence needs to be avoided so that good decisions are taken.
Negligence leads to breach in the duty and injury is caused. The injured person needs to be
restored to the same position by the defendant through monetary or non-monetary support.
5

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
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.
Bell, A. J., 2018. Damages for non-pecuniary loss in the tort of negligence: a
reconceptualisation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham).
Iacobucci, E. M. and Trebilcock, M. J., 2016. An economic analysis of waiver of tort in
negligence actions. University of Toronto Law Journal. 66(2). pp.173-196.
Jackson, E., 2016. ‘Informed Consent’to Medical Treatment and the Impotence of Tort. In First
Do No Harm (pp. 289-302). Routledge.
Levin, N., 2017. TorTs in israeli law. Medical MalpracTice and nonpecuniary HarM. Studia
Prawno-Ekonomiczne. (105). pp.23-44.
Owen, J., 2018. Tearing Up the Patchwork Quilt: An Examination of How, Why and When
Liability for Psychiatric Injury in the Tort of Negligence.
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.
Tan, B., 2018. An Unwanted Child: Awards for Damages in the Tort of Negligence. Sing. Comp.
L. Rev., p.97.
6