Tort Law Report: Analyzing Negligence, Causation, and Defenses

This report provides an analysis of a tort law case involving Brandon and Hoof Hearted Adventures Ltd., focusing on the elements of negligence, duty of care, causation, and potential defenses. The report examines the legal principles applicable to the case, referencing the Donoghue v. Stevenson case law to illustrate the concept of duty of care. It identifies the essential elements of negligence action, including duty of care, standard care, and damages, and assesses the breach of duty by Hoof Hearted Adventures. The potential defenses available to the defendant, such as contributory negligence and volenti non fit injuria, are discussed. The report also highlights the damages that Brandon could claim, including financial and physical losses, and lists five important witnesses or pieces of evidence relevant to the case, including the negligent behavior of Hoof Hearted Adventures and the negligence of Brandon. It concludes that while Hoof Hearted Adventures was negligent, it could defend itself through contributory negligence.

TORT LAW

Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................3
Main Body..................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................4
References..................................................................................................................................5

INTRODUCTION
A tort comprises wrongful acts which result into physical, financial or emotional loss to a
person. Another person can be legally held responsible for the wrongful act (Hodgson, 2016).
The main categories of tort law are unintentional torts and intentional torts (Reynolds and
Kozub,2017.). Present report emphasizes on discussing the essential elements of Brandon’s
case in order to take decision regarding the case. Further, damages which could be claimed
and available defences have been discussed in detail in order to provide appropriate base to
the decision.
MAIN BODY
The two main parties involved in the case are claimant Bradon and defendant Hoof Hearted
Adventures Ltd. The four main legal principles which exist in present case are damage,
causation, duty of care and respective standard relating to same. The main legal principle of
duty of care asserts than an individual has obligation to avoid acts which could reasonably
harm other persons (Goudkamp and Murphy, 2015). As per assertions of Yates (2015), the
same represents that it is necessary to prevent client from anticipated risk. All these legal
principles could be assessed from the decision of case law of Donoghue v. Stevenson in
which decision was made in favour of claimant and appropriate damages were provided for
same.
The essential elements of negligence action in present case are duty of care, standard care
and damages. In present case as it was primary duty of Hoof hearted Adventures to keep the
riding area safe but due to unavailability of appropriate time and busy schedule it ignored the
same. It can be assessed that breach has been conducted by Hoof hearted Adventures by
making delay in this necessary repair work. The damages which were faced by Brandon
comprise financial as well as physical loss.
The defences available to Hoof hearted Adventures is contributory negligence. As Brandon
was also in hurry, he did not notice that the equipment he is using are not repaired. In order to
apply same defence of volentinon- fitinjuriais could be applied as he presented negligence in
reading the agreement too.

The damages which claim can be made by Brandon is the financial loss i.e. he won’t be able
to go back to work as well as loss relating to physical injuries.
The five important witness or evidences are as follows:
The first evidence is the negligent behaviour of Hoof hearted adventure, it is relevant as they
did not make repair of rocky surface which was very essential for safety of horse riders.
Further they made delay in repairs due to time constraints which increase the risk for visitors.
The same resulted as major evidence of default for accomplishing their duty of care.
The negligence of Brandon in reading the agreement and riding horse without any assistance
are the other two important evidences. The last evidence is acceptance of the assistance at
horse riding that due to being busy with other group he did not attended Brandon in
appropriate manner. These evidences have made Brandon part of making claims weak as they
are the evidence of his negligent behaviour.
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded from above discussion that as Hoof hearted Adventures has been
negligent at its course of obligations (duty of care), however it could defend itself through
taking assistance of contributory negligence.

REFERENCES
Goudkamp, J., & Murphy, J. (2015). The failure of universal theories of tort law. Legal
Theory, 21(2), 47-85.
Hodgson, D. (2016). The law of intervening causation. Routledge.
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.