Claim Damages By Finding Dale Cooper Liable For Vicarious Liability
It is probable that Bob will attempt to claim damages by finding Dale Cooper liable for vicarious liability, as he began to suffer from PTSD after killing Mike. Much like Mike’s estate, Bob will also have to prove that the requirements for vicarious liability are suffice. However, Bob’s claim falls short of success due to the defence of contributory negligence under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, Section 1(1). It was clarified in Pitts (1990) that one party cannot be the completely liable for the tort, and so Dale Cooper must prove Bob had made some contribution. In order for contributory negligence to be successful for Dale Cooper, they must prove according to Davies (1949) that the claimant failed to take proper care in the circumstances for their own safety. This can be exhibited through the fact that
…show more content…
The defence of volenti non fit injuria is a defence for persons who consent to the harm or consents to any activity which carries a risk of harm. This person cannot hold the person who committed the tort accountable. Once the tort has been proved, it must then be shown that the claimant had knowledge of the risk involved. For Laura, it may be plausible to justify that she had knowledge of the risk of the harm she suffered. This is because it may state in her contract, that she may be prone to injury on the construction site for example. Assuming this is true, she would have willingly consented (Morris (1991)) to this as she was working at the time, and so she would have signed a contract of some sort. This, however, may be considered improbable as Smith (1981) demonstrated that continuing to work in a job that is known to carry risks cannot be taken as consent to risk. This is because of the financial reality of life, as people cannot consider leaving work to avoid the risk of harm. It is likely, that this defence would be unsuccessful against Laura if these can be
The defence of volenti non fit injuria is a defence for persons who consent to the harm or consents to any activity which carries a risk of harm. This person cannot hold the person who committed the tort accountable. Once the tort has been proved, it must then be shown that the claimant had knowledge of the risk involved. For Laura, it may be plausible to justify that she had knowledge of the risk of the harm she suffered. This is because it may state in her contract, that she may be prone to injury on the construction site for example. Assuming this is true, she would have willingly consented (Morris (1991)) to this as she was working at the time, and so she would have signed a contract of some sort. This, however, may be considered improbable as Smith (1981) demonstrated that continuing to work in a job that is known to carry risks cannot be taken as consent to risk. This is because of the financial reality of life, as people cannot consider leaving work to avoid the risk of harm. It is likely, that this defence would be unsuccessful against Laura if these can be