Case Study: Tort Of Negligence
This case is in regards to the tort of negligence, with the central issue being causation. With the evidence provided, it is necessary to determine whether Vera and PC Webster are owed a duty of care and subsequently have any claims.
Firstly, the 'but for' test is to be applied, in which the courts ask: 'but for the defendant's action, would the damage have occurred?' The courts have accepted that drivers automatically owes a duty of care to every other road user , including pedestrians. Jack's standards have fallen below that of a reasonable person as him not paying attention to the road resulted in an injured Vera. The court will assess whether the negligent act was the most likely cause of the claimant's injuries, based on the balance of probabilities. There is an over 50% chance that Jack's negligence was the cause therefore it is to be treated as the 100% factual cause, meaning this specific injury i.e. the broken leg is actionable. …show more content…
This is an issue of material contribution , as the cause of the injury is one of different factors. The problem lies in the presence of Vera's rare bone condition and her leg being prone to give way. There is enough medical certainty to establish that the injury would still have occurred, meaning the defendant's actions were not more than negligible and so Jack is not liable for the claimant's broken
Firstly, the 'but for' test is to be applied, in which the courts ask: 'but for the defendant's action, would the damage have occurred?' The courts have accepted that drivers automatically owes a duty of care to every other road user , including pedestrians. Jack's standards have fallen below that of a reasonable person as him not paying attention to the road resulted in an injured Vera. The court will assess whether the negligent act was the most likely cause of the claimant's injuries, based on the balance of probabilities. There is an over 50% chance that Jack's negligence was the cause therefore it is to be treated as the 100% factual cause, meaning this specific injury i.e. the broken leg is actionable. …show more content…
This is an issue of material contribution , as the cause of the injury is one of different factors. The problem lies in the presence of Vera's rare bone condition and her leg being prone to give way. There is enough medical certainty to establish that the injury would still have occurred, meaning the defendant's actions were not more than negligible and so Jack is not liable for the claimant's broken