CEM Legal Studies Assignment 2 LAW4LST Oct
QUESTION 1
For this question, I will split each person cases, that is, Bertram, Sally, Anna and Jane.
CASE 1: BERTRAM CLAIM
For Bertram, I would recommend him two claims :
Firstly, against the driver of the car, which is Albert's car insurance company and against Third Parties.
Secondly, against the newly qualified doctor.
I will not recommend the Third Party Liability on the fact that Bertram may be held liable. He knew that Albert was intoxicated but still decided to get into the car. Also, he encouraged and actively participated in Albert's intoxication. Bertram can be held responsible for any resulting injuries to both him and Albert if this is proved during the case.
Let's get to the claim against Albert's car insurance company. Under the common law of negligence, victims and their families can bring claims against the drunk driver for damages. To bring a negligence claim, Bertram must typically prove:
The driver owed a duty to others to operate the car in a safe manner
The driver breached the duty
The driver's breach caused injury to the plaintiff
The plaintiff suffered compensable damages
A drunk driver has the same duty of care as a sober driver. Intoxication is not a defense to failing to act as a reasonable driver would in the same circumstances.
The very act of driving drunk is enough to prove that Albert breached his or her duty to the plaintiff. In this case, the plaintiff still must prove that the drunk driver actions are the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries, that is, but for the acts of the drunk driver, Bertram would not have been injured.
For the claim against the newly qualified doctor, here it is purely Negligence or ''Medical Negligence'' from the doctor who examined him at first. Bertram can take the doctor to the civil court for compensation.
In order to bring a successful claim against the doctor, Bertram has to prove on the balance of probabilities:
Breach of duty – that the treatment was such that no reasonable practitioner
For this question, I will split each person cases, that is, Bertram, Sally, Anna and Jane.
CASE 1: BERTRAM CLAIM
For Bertram, I would recommend him two claims :
Firstly, against the driver of the car, which is Albert's car insurance company and against Third Parties.
Secondly, against the newly qualified doctor.
I will not recommend the Third Party Liability on the fact that Bertram may be held liable. He knew that Albert was intoxicated but still decided to get into the car. Also, he encouraged and actively participated in Albert's intoxication. Bertram can be held responsible for any resulting injuries to both him and Albert if this is proved during the case.
Let's get to the claim against Albert's car insurance company. Under the common law of negligence, victims and their families can bring claims against the drunk driver for damages. To bring a negligence claim, Bertram must typically prove:
The driver owed a duty to others to operate the car in a safe manner
The driver breached the duty
The driver's breach caused injury to the plaintiff
The plaintiff suffered compensable damages
A drunk driver has the same duty of care as a sober driver. Intoxication is not a defense to failing to act as a reasonable driver would in the same circumstances.
The very act of driving drunk is enough to prove that Albert breached his or her duty to the plaintiff. In this case, the plaintiff still must prove that the drunk driver actions are the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries, that is, but for the acts of the drunk driver, Bertram would not have been injured.
For the claim against the newly qualified doctor, here it is purely Negligence or ''Medical Negligence'' from the doctor who examined him at first. Bertram can take the doctor to the civil court for compensation.
In order to bring a successful claim against the doctor, Bertram has to prove on the balance of probabilities:
Breach of duty – that the treatment was such that no reasonable practitioner