Law 110
Charles Sturt University
LAW110
Assessment task 2
Presented to: Vipulanandam Wijayaratnam
Presented by: Mahmud Shourov
Student ID: 11504809
Answer to question no.1
Issues
After unforeseeably hitting drunk Mary and injury her (breaking her leg), is Bob liable for Mary’s injury according to Torts?
Can Sam sue Tom because he was stuck in traffic for the accident?
Law
When a party caused physical injury to some as long as the harm was foreseeable, a defendant is liable for all types harm suffered by a plaintiff, including those that were not foreseeable. This is known as the ‘Egg-shell skull’ rules. In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100. In which the Donoghue drank ginger beer and found snail in the bottle and caused her stomach pain and her doctor diagnosed her as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock. So, Stevenson is liable for her physical injury.
In the case, Bob was driving without a care because he was changing a CD in his car. So, there is contributory negligence because there is Duty of care and Breach of duty. The likelihood and seriousness is high because He wasn’t watching the road while driving and Mary crossed the road without looking for traffic. So there is unexpected and freak hazard. Practicability of precautions. (Paris v Stepney Borough Council) and (Latimer v. AEC Ltd 1953). Bob caused damage to Mary by breaking her legs directly (no remoteness). For this personal physical injury Bob owes Mary’s pecuniary damages. This he must pay if Mary sues Bob in court.
When financial loss occurs there must be reasonably foreseeable by a reasonable person. (Overseas Tankship (UK/Ltd) v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd). In which the council found that even though the crew were careless and breached their duty of care, the resulting extensive damage by fire was not foreseeable by a reasonable person.
In the case, Tom (electrician) couldn’t get to fix Sam’s refrigerators and caused Sam $5000 worth financial loss
LAW110
Assessment task 2
Presented to: Vipulanandam Wijayaratnam
Presented by: Mahmud Shourov
Student ID: 11504809
Answer to question no.1
Issues
After unforeseeably hitting drunk Mary and injury her (breaking her leg), is Bob liable for Mary’s injury according to Torts?
Can Sam sue Tom because he was stuck in traffic for the accident?
Law
When a party caused physical injury to some as long as the harm was foreseeable, a defendant is liable for all types harm suffered by a plaintiff, including those that were not foreseeable. This is known as the ‘Egg-shell skull’ rules. In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100. In which the Donoghue drank ginger beer and found snail in the bottle and caused her stomach pain and her doctor diagnosed her as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock. So, Stevenson is liable for her physical injury.
In the case, Bob was driving without a care because he was changing a CD in his car. So, there is contributory negligence because there is Duty of care and Breach of duty. The likelihood and seriousness is high because He wasn’t watching the road while driving and Mary crossed the road without looking for traffic. So there is unexpected and freak hazard. Practicability of precautions. (Paris v Stepney Borough Council) and (Latimer v. AEC Ltd 1953). Bob caused damage to Mary by breaking her legs directly (no remoteness). For this personal physical injury Bob owes Mary’s pecuniary damages. This he must pay if Mary sues Bob in court.
When financial loss occurs there must be reasonably foreseeable by a reasonable person. (Overseas Tankship (UK/Ltd) v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd). In which the council found that even though the crew were careless and breached their duty of care, the resulting extensive damage by fire was not foreseeable by a reasonable person.
In the case, Tom (electrician) couldn’t get to fix Sam’s refrigerators and caused Sam $5000 worth financial loss