CASE STUDY

Case Study

Case Study

TASK 1

The Tort of Negligence

(1)    Negligence defined. Negligence is the malfunction to use that stage of care needed under the circumstances to avert damage to others. It can be a malfunction to precede (nonfeasance) or portraying heedlessly (malfeasance). It is performing that conceives an awkward risk of damage to others. The negligent proceed should conceive this risk; the actor is liable for the sensibly foreseeable outcomes of that negligence. Negligence should take into account the circumstances that battled the actor. Think of it this way: If I am going by car down the road, managing the pace limit, and I run into your vehicle, was I negligent? It would emerge so, but there are detail positions that might change the conclusion completely(Shearman 2000 245). What if, a progeny reach soaring out from behind a parked car? Now, under these details, presume I (the driver) have vitally two choices: (1) hit the child; or (2) swerve to bypass hitting him, which will cause me to run into your car? Now what--was I negligent for having hit your car? The issue is that we have to gaze at the circumstances, since negligence does not live in a vacuum(Dunham 2008 602).

(2)    The benchmark of care. The applicable lawful benchmark is one of reasonableness, and is called "ordinary care" (sometimes called "due care" or "reasonable care").

 

Proximate Cause

Proximate cause lives where the plaintiff is hurt as the outcome of negligent perform, and plaintiff's wound should have been a natural and likely outcome of the negligent conduct. In order for a defendant to be liable, the plaintiff should set up both negligence and proximate cause(Shearman 2000 245).

Please note that the law talks of the defendant's perform as being "a proximate cause" of a misfortune, as are against to "the proximate cause". Many misfortunes have more than one proximate cause. It is normally not essential for liability that the defendant's negligence be either the only proximate cause of a wound, or the last proximate cause. A defendant may be liable even where a wound has multiple proximate causes, and if those causes happen at the identical time or in combination. A plaintiff may be adept to convey a cause of activity contrary to two or more defendants by verifying that the actions of each were proximate causes of the plaintiff's wound, even where the defendants' negligent actions were distinct(Barnett v Chelsea Hospital Management Committee (1969) QBD).

Imagine a position where a plaintiff is going by car down the street, and is abruptly slash off by a person who sprints through a halt signal on an edge street. The plaintiff bangs on her brakes, and is adept to bypass hitting that car. However, the plaintiff is rear-ended by another person going by car who was not giving vigilance to the happenings in front of his car. The plaintiff may be adept to convey an activity contrary to both drivers - the one who slash her off and the one who rear-ended her ...