Essay (case studies)
Laura A. Simmons
Summative Assignment 1 Part A: Tort of Negligence
Module Code 3MO509
Introduction
To identify the principal elements of liability in the tort of negligence, concluding whether or not liability would be justified in the following three cases we must first understand what tort law is.
“In most branches of English law the effect of historical accidents and procedural requirements is to obstruct orderly and scientific exposition- this is especially true of branches such as the law of torts where the sources are to be found mainly in common law and not in statute law.” Professor Harry Street
In this essay, the part of tort law that will be discussed is the tort of negligence, using the precedence set …show more content…
Lynette was not considered a good driver but regularly drove her car and she kept it insured. It was found that although she had been driving very carefully at the time, she knew the car had faulty brakes which she was planning to fixed the next day and had not been able to get the car into a garage before. The brake failure is what caused the car to mount the pavement and therefore leading to the death of Karen. In this case when we ask the same questions as above we find that Lynette did breach her duty of care to Karen by knowingly driving a car with faulty brakes on a public highway. When we apply an objective test “the reasonable man standard” to this case, it could be said that the reasonable man would not have driven the car until it was fixed, further showing that Lynette should indeed be found liable in this …show more content…
The responsibility to provide evidence lies with the claimant not the defendant. As in all the above case studies the people directly affected by the negligence died as a result the defendant would usually be the family for the deceased. In the first case study Philip was guilty of negligence but his employer was guilty of vicarious negligence as so would be held accountable. The second case study showed us that Lynette, neglected to sort her brakes out and so is entirely responsible for the accident that resulted in Karen's demise. Case study three, while it may seem harsh that the doctor in this case very well could be found innocent using the “but for” and “bolem” tests, it is often the case with services such as the NHS, Police and Fire department. This is for our own benefit, if the people doing these often highly skilled, dangerous or frightening jobs were overly worried about tort law they may not be able to carry out their roles as effectively for fear of being
Laura A. Simmons
Summative Assignment 1 Part A: Tort of Negligence
Module Code 3MO509
Introduction
To identify the principal elements of liability in the tort of negligence, concluding whether or not liability would be justified in the following three cases we must first understand what tort law is.
“In most branches of English law the effect of historical accidents and procedural requirements is to obstruct orderly and scientific exposition- this is especially true of branches such as the law of torts where the sources are to be found mainly in common law and not in statute law.” Professor Harry Street
In this essay, the part of tort law that will be discussed is the tort of negligence, using the precedence set …show more content…
Lynette was not considered a good driver but regularly drove her car and she kept it insured. It was found that although she had been driving very carefully at the time, she knew the car had faulty brakes which she was planning to fixed the next day and had not been able to get the car into a garage before. The brake failure is what caused the car to mount the pavement and therefore leading to the death of Karen. In this case when we ask the same questions as above we find that Lynette did breach her duty of care to Karen by knowingly driving a car with faulty brakes on a public highway. When we apply an objective test “the reasonable man standard” to this case, it could be said that the reasonable man would not have driven the car until it was fixed, further showing that Lynette should indeed be found liable in this …show more content…
The responsibility to provide evidence lies with the claimant not the defendant. As in all the above case studies the people directly affected by the negligence died as a result the defendant would usually be the family for the deceased. In the first case study Philip was guilty of negligence but his employer was guilty of vicarious negligence as so would be held accountable. The second case study showed us that Lynette, neglected to sort her brakes out and so is entirely responsible for the accident that resulted in Karen's demise. Case study three, while it may seem harsh that the doctor in this case very well could be found innocent using the “but for” and “bolem” tests, it is often the case with services such as the NHS, Police and Fire department. This is for our own benefit, if the people doing these often highly skilled, dangerous or frightening jobs were overly worried about tort law they may not be able to carry out their roles as effectively for fear of being