Tort Law Analysis: Implications of a Lawsuit - BNV 7080 Module

This report analyzes a tort law case involving a construction site injury. The scenario involves 'Global Electrical' (subcontractor) and 'PCUK' (contractor) where Michael, the project manager, observes safety violations. The report explores the implications of a lawsuit for both companies, examining negligence, legal duties, and potential compensation. It considers the impact if Michael had ignored warnings or promptly alerted 'Global Electrical'. The analysis delves into how Ryan's actions (entering the site without approval) affect the case, referencing case law. Furthermore, the report discusses the role of Ryan's age in determining liability and provides relevant legal principles. The report emphasizes the importance of workplace safety and adherence to tort law principles, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal ramifications of the scenario.

Running head: PRINCIPLES OF TORT LAW
PRINCIPLES OF TORT LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
PRINCIPLES OF TORT LAW
Table of Contents
Question 3:...........................................................................................................................................2
Part 01:.............................................................................................................................................2
Analyse the possible implications of this law suit for both ‘Global Electrical’ and ‘PCUK’:.....2
What are the implications if Michael had ignored the warning signs?........................................3
What are the implications if Michael had promptly alerted ‘Global Electrical’?........................3
Part 2:...............................................................................................................................................4
How would this impact the law suit?...........................................................................................4
In addition would the implications be different depending on Ryan’s age?................................6
References:...........................................................................................................................................7

2
PRINCIPLES OF TORT LAW
Question 3:
Part 01:
Analyse the possible implications of this law suit for both ‘Global Electrical’ and ‘PCUK’:
Tort specifies activities that are responsible for injury to another person. Here an injured
party is entitled to sue the other person for whom the injury might have been occurred.
In a typical tort lawsuit, the party which is injured is known as the plaintiff” in civil cases (it
is somehow comparable and might be regarded as the prosecutor which is often referred in a
criminal case) — they are allowed to pursue compensation and this needs to be done through the
personal injury attorney who represent the case on behalf of the party who seeks compensations
against the accused party, also known as the “defendant” for damages incurred (it might include
harm to property, health, or well-being).
Now there are certain tort principles that needs to be analysed to review the case of Ryan in
this context.
According to principles of tort, it is legal duty of every person to act in such a way that
reduces chance of injury to others. It is expected that every person will follow this as a moral code
of conduct. However, if one does not adhere to this principles and causes damages to others, it is
considered as negligence. It is also most common type of tort that is often identified.
Negligence tort dos not consider if actions are deliberately or not, it only considers if there
were any act of carelessness done by individual or any entity.
PCUK had given a sub contract to ‘Global Electrical’ for all the electrical work and wiring.
One day although the Project Manager of PCUK, Michael noticed that necessary safety precautions
had not been taken by the subcontractor ‘Global Electrical’ whilst performing their work and he

3
PRINCIPLES OF TORT LAW
deems that this could be dangerous to any visitor and the subcontractor is carrying out work
negligently, he has not informed ‘Global Electrical’ about this.
From the above scenario, it is not difficult to identify that both the party has neglected their
respective duty to ensure workplace safety and safety for others as well. Hence if Rayan files a
lawsuit against both of these party, they have no argument to defend against it. Hence both the
parties have to pay for the injury of Rayan.
What are the implications if Michael had ignored the warning signs?
However, if Michael had ignored the warning signs and if it is found that he has not
informed ‘Global Electrical’, then the implications might be the following:
‘Global Electrical’ will accuse the Project Manager of PCUK for not following his duty.
Now they will also present this argument that if he has warned them about this issue, it might have
been resolved quickly. Against this claim, Michael, the Project Manager of PCUK might present
this argument as well, as ‘Global Electrical’ are the contractor for the electrical work and wiring, it
is their expertise to find that issue as they are expert in this work. Now whether PCUK has warned
them or not, it is always expected that, they will ensure that there is no risk due to the work done by
them. Hence they are more responsible than ‘Global Electrical’ to pay for the injury
However according to tort principles, as both of these parties have not followed their own
duties, both are liable for this incident and both have to pay for this, however there is chance that
these amount will be distributed among both parties with ‘Global Electrical’ to pay more than
PCUK.
What are the implications if Michael had promptly alerted ‘Global Electrical’?
If Michael had promptly alerted ‘Global Electrical’ and even after that injury occurs, then there
might be the following implications:

4
PRINCIPLES OF TORT LAW
 PCUK could have made this argument that whether they have followed their duty of
informing ‘Global Electrical’ about the possible risks of not following proper precautions
during work and if now they does not take this into their considerations, PUCK should not
be held responsible for injury to Rayan.
 Argument made by PCUK might be accepted as well and the court might instruct ‘Global
Electrical’ to pay the full amount of the compensation to Rayan for his injury.
In a case in UK, a construction worker was employed as self-employed bricklayer during
inspection of silos, slipped and the top left of his femur. As the injury was significant and according
to the doctor he will not be able to work as builder which was his profession and he was also an
expert in this regard. Hence, the court ordered the construction authority to pay as £80,000
compensation. These case was fought by Blackwater Law personal injury solicitors on behalf of the
injured construction worker.
Part 2:
How would this impact the law suit?
However, according to tort law of principle, it is not always necessary that defendant are the
only ones who needs to be accused. Role of victim in this case has to be reviewed equally. Whether,
the injury or the damage happened only because of the carelessness of the defendants, or was there
any involvement of the victim as well needs to be reviewed in details, as this information
significantly effects the result of the case.
If it is found that, victims was also careless or did not followed proper cautions as specified
by defendants, then the defendants might not have to pay the full amount for the compensation
claimed by the person for the injury occurred. However, the defendant have to prove that there were
proper measures taken to ensure that injury does not happen, but the victim has not followed it.
Now in this case of Rayan, it was later revealed that Ryan had not taken the necessary
approval to enter the construction site. This is a lack of awareness or might be considered as

5
PRINCIPLES OF TORT LAW
carelessness for which Rayan should have been more careful and he should have enquired before
entering into the construction site.
Now the personal injury attorney appointed by Rayan, might claim that whether permission
was taken or not for entering into the site, it does not eliminate the fact that the site was not properly
secured and if it was not his client himself, the incident or injury might have been happened for
others who have access or permission to enter the site which confirms lack of effort from the
authority to make the site free from any kind of risk to ensure no one is injured while working there.
If this argument is presented in court before the judge in the court, there is very much possibility
that that this argument will be accepted by the judge as a case of tort and there is an significant
chance that the author have to pay the full amount for the injury caused to Rayan as careless nature
of the authority is much more significant here than Rayan.
Hence, even if Later on, it is revealed that Ryan had not taken the necessary approval to
enter the construction site, it would not impact the judgement of the lawsuit that much. However, it
still depends on the way arguments are presented by both parties and how that is considered by the
judge. However, still the chance of Rayan winning the case is more than the authority as their
careless has more impact here than Rayan on the injury occurred.
In this case a case law will be analysed to justify this argument. In the recent Court of
Appeal case of Polyflor Ltd v Health and Safety Executive, an employee accused his company after
his arm was fractured while he was working with a granulator in-feed conveyor to recycle vinyl
material. Although the guard was not present on the conveyor, the authority provided the
permission to work with the machine. The permission was granted without providing any additional
advice and review of precautions. Hence, the employee even after committing mistake of pushing
the conveyor belt with a spanner while the running was not smooth, the result of the case was
announced in favour of the employee. Although the employer presented the argument that it was
carelessness of the employee which was responsible for this injury, the court did not accept this

6
PRINCIPLES OF TORT LAW
argument, instead the court specified that if it was known to the employee that there was chance of
risk if someone act carelessly, then it was duty of the employer to ensure that its employers are not
exposed to such risks. Hence, according to the court, the employers have to pay the required amount
demanded for the injury by the employee.
In addition would the implications be different depending on Ryan’s age?
In tort law cases age plays a significant role in judgement process. Although a minor is
responsible for his or her own tort, determination of liability has some specific rules:
 Under age 7: “A child could not be negligent”.
 Between age 7 and 14: “There was a rebuttable presumption that the child could not be
negligent”.
 Between age 14 and 21: “There was a rebuttable presumption that the child was capable of
negligence”.
In the case of Tyler v. Weed, 280 N.W. 827 (Mich. 1938), Ted who was only 6 ½ years old
during when the case was filed. He was injured after he came in front of a car while running, the
driver when made an argument that, the incident happened because the child was negligent as the
matter of law to which the judges specified that it is not possible for the child to negligent due to his
age, but they need evidence and proper analysis of the circumstances to held Ted negligent.

7
PRINCIPLES OF TORT LAW
References:
Avraham, R., 2018. Database of state tort law reforms (5th).
Best, A., Barnes, D.W. and Kahn-Fogel, N., 2018. Basic tort law: cases, statutes, and problems.
Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Goldberg, J.C., Sebok, A.J. and Zipursky, B.C., 2016. Tort Law: Responsibilities and Redress.
Aspen Publishers.
Kysar, D.A., 2018. The public life of private law: Tort law as a risk regulation
mechanism. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 9(1), pp.48-65.
Robbennolt, J.K. and Hans, V.P., 2016. The psychology of tort law. In Advances in Psychology and
Law (pp. 249-274). Springer, Cham.
Tushnet, M., 2017. Comparative constitutional law. In The Oxford handbook of comparative law.
Wright, J., 2017. Tort law and human rights. Bloomsbury Publishing.