Question 1 a Sydney Tramway Passenger Was Injured in Collision with Another Tram, Which Occurred After the Driver Collapsed at the Controls. the Plaintiff Argued That the Collision Could Have Been Avoided If the Tramway
HA2022 BUSINESS LAW
RESEARCH ASSIGNMENT
TRIMESTER 2, 2012
DUE DATE: - MONDAY 24ST SEPTEMBER 2012
SUBMITTED BY: - ANUP SINGH RAIMAJHI (WMT2060)
Question 1
A Sydney tramway passenger was injured in collision with another tram, which occurred after the driver collapsed at the controls. The plaintiff argued that the collision could have been avoided if the tramway authority had fitted the tram with system known as ‘dead man’s handle’, a system in use on Sydney’s trains. This would have stopped the tram and avoided the accident. The device had been rejected by the tramway authorities because it was felt that it could cause drivers to become tired, irritated and inefficient. There was no evidence of any similar device in use on two-man trams anywhere in the world. Will the plaintiff succeed in his negligence claim? Explain your reasoning?
Answer:-
Issue: Will the plaintiff succeed in his negligence claim and did the tramway authorities show that they had taken all reasonable care?
“Negligence is an omission to do something that a reasonable person would do, or doing something that a prudent and reasonable person would not do. It is the failure to exercise reasonable care and skill” (Andy Gibson, Douglas Fraser, Business Law 5th edition, Pearson 2011 page No.165).
Hence to succeed in negligence claim there are various elements which has to be established by the plaintiff against the defendant. Above we can see the tramway authorities including the driver are defendant and the passenger who suffered injury is a plaintiff.
Elements of negligence:
A duty of care: If we consider the above issue we can clearly figure out that the tramway driver and tramway authority (the defendant) had owed a duty of care against the passenger (the plaintiff) based in the relationship between them – that is, foreseeable risk of injury – the defendant ought to have foreseen that his/her negligence
RESEARCH ASSIGNMENT
TRIMESTER 2, 2012
DUE DATE: - MONDAY 24ST SEPTEMBER 2012
SUBMITTED BY: - ANUP SINGH RAIMAJHI (WMT2060)
Question 1
A Sydney tramway passenger was injured in collision with another tram, which occurred after the driver collapsed at the controls. The plaintiff argued that the collision could have been avoided if the tramway authority had fitted the tram with system known as ‘dead man’s handle’, a system in use on Sydney’s trains. This would have stopped the tram and avoided the accident. The device had been rejected by the tramway authorities because it was felt that it could cause drivers to become tired, irritated and inefficient. There was no evidence of any similar device in use on two-man trams anywhere in the world. Will the plaintiff succeed in his negligence claim? Explain your reasoning?
Answer:-
Issue: Will the plaintiff succeed in his negligence claim and did the tramway authorities show that they had taken all reasonable care?
“Negligence is an omission to do something that a reasonable person would do, or doing something that a prudent and reasonable person would not do. It is the failure to exercise reasonable care and skill” (Andy Gibson, Douglas Fraser, Business Law 5th edition, Pearson 2011 page No.165).
Hence to succeed in negligence claim there are various elements which has to be established by the plaintiff against the defendant. Above we can see the tramway authorities including the driver are defendant and the passenger who suffered injury is a plaintiff.
Elements of negligence:
A duty of care: If we consider the above issue we can clearly figure out that the tramway driver and tramway authority (the defendant) had owed a duty of care against the passenger (the plaintiff) based in the relationship between them – that is, foreseeable risk of injury – the defendant ought to have foreseen that his/her negligence
References: • Andy Gibson, Douglas Fraser, Business Law 5th edition, Pearson 2011 • Gee v Metropolitan Railway Co [1873] LR 8 QB 161 • Lister v Romford Ice and Cold storage Co Ltd [1957]