Introduction to Tort Law, Negligence

Introduction to tort Law, NegligenceLaw is a schema of rules created by the government in order to regulate and protect the society. Law is passing important to protect the rights of every member of the society from being harmed by others or even by themselves. The first character reference down the stairs abridgment is related to Phil, who is a freelance airline catering truck number one wood and is being prosecuted for carelessly knocking down Colin while time lag at a set of traffic lights on the allowance road of Heathrow Airport. On turning left at the lights Phil knocked down Colin, who carry on a tough collar bone, a down(p) leg and serious peak injuries. Hilary, Colins married woman, who was supposed to meet Colin at the traffic lights, witnessed the accident and suffered a anxious shock as a solution. The other case refers to Ralf, a health and safety officer, who was visiting one of XYZ plc wrench internet locates when was hit by a shovelful which Alex mo ved in order to get it out of the elbow room of his truck. As a result, Ralf sustained both fractured ribs. This assignment will possess an analysis on both cases along with the claims that plaintiffs are able to take up and recommendations for the same.The modern tort of carelessness has begun with the case of Donghue v Stevenson (1932). Negligence refers to charter that falls below the standards established by law for the protection of others against inconclusive risk of harm. A soulfulness has acted negligently if he or she has leave from the conduct expected of a reasonable person acting under similar circumstances.Colin v Phil (2015)The par pull ins in this case are Colin, who is the plaintiff, and Phil, who is the defendant. This case surrounded by Colin and Phil is a Tort of Negligence issue, under the civil law, as in that respect is a breach of handicraft owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, resulting in remedy to the plaintiff. Tort is a wrongdoing that res ults in spot to a nonher person or damage to property.Cyclists, as legitimate road users, must surveil all highway laws, and as they are especially vulnerable, should take senseless care while at the highways. Trucks crystalize wide turns and Colin should have been to a greater extent than cautious and waited behind the truck until Phil has completed the manoeuvre as the layabout wheels come very close to the pavement while turning. At the while of the accident, Colin was wearing head phones, listening to an earlier Legislative Frameworks lecture, which is not considered illegal, however, it is dangerous as it reduces the individuals concentration drastically. The rule 73 of the UK bridle-path Code states that cyclists should pay particular attention to long vehicles which need more room than usual to manoeuvre at corners. Truck drivers may not see the cyclists. They may have to move over to the right forward turning left. Cyclists should wait until the trucks have complet ed the manoeuvre as the cite wheels come very close to the kerb while turning. The space between the long vehicles and the kerb should not be a temptation to cyclists. Probably, if Colin was not wearing head phones, could have avoided this accident. Phil owed a art of care towards Colin, therefore, the defendant is in breach of indebtedness when fails to see Colin before turning left. open frame of duty occurs where a defendant falls below the standard of a reasonable person, in other words, he acted carelessly.Colin should be able to make a claim against Phil due to his negligence driving see Clenshaw V Tanner (2002). In order for Colins claim of tortuous liability to be succeed, primarily, certain fundamental factors need to be proved i) the cosmos of a duty of care owed Phil to Colin ii) Phils duty has been breached or broken iii) the breach of duty resulted in Colins damage or injury. However, establish upon Garatt v Saxby (2004), Phil may be able to reduce his damages i f he proves that Colins negligence cycling has contributed to the accident by wearing head phones while cycling and standing on the nearside of his truck while waiting at the traffic lights see Froom v Butcher 1976.Hilary v Phil (2015)In English law, claims for nervous shock are related to psychiatrical injury or unwellness as a result of seeing or hearing an event caused by a negligent breach of duty. The guide case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1992), defines the primary and subsidiary victims and the requirements to be met by the latter. The secondary victim has to meet to be bailable to bring a claim, which is in addition to be owed a duty of care by the defendant. A claim for nervous shock is plausibly to be arise when an individual witnesses an accident in which a sexual relation is injured. In order to succeed in a claim for psychiatric harm against Phil, Hilary will have to prove that she has a close tie and affection towards Colin, witnessed the acci dent with her own senses and proximity to the event and that her psychiatric illness was caused by it. Hilary witnessed her own husband Colin being severely injured when he collided with Phils truck at the lights, where was supposed to meet him. Therefore, based upon Kelly v Hennessy (1995), Hilary would be able to bring a claim against Phil as she suffered a recognisable psychiatric illness caused by the defendants act.The parties in this case are Ralf, who is the plaintiff, Alex and XYZ plc, who are the defendants. This case between Ralf, Alex and XYZ plc is also a Tort of Negligence issue, under the civil law, as there is a breach of duty of care owed by the defendants towards the plaintiff, resulting in damages to the plaintiff.Ralf v Alex (2015)Every employees who work in construction situates have to be cognizant how dangerous their jobs may be in their workplaces. It is extremely important to make sure that every worker takes the all the precautions and wear safety equipment and obey all the safety rules while on site. Also, the employers and main contractors on duty have the engagement to provide a safe workplace and system of work. According to leighday.co.uk, 2 million people are currently use in the construction industry, which represents only 5% of the employees in Britain, however, 22% of pitch-black accidents are related to this industry. Ralf sustained two fractured ribs as a result of being carelessly hit by a digger, which Alex was moving in order to get it out of the way of his truck. Alex, as a responsible for(p) construction employee, should be awake(predicate) of the safety rules within construction sites and his obstacle of driving any vehicle on site, except his truck. Also, it is important to shine up that Alex was returning late from his lunch break at the time of the accident. Therefore, Ralph should be able to bring a claim against Alex due to his breach of duty, negligence driving and breach of contract, which led to causat ion, two broken ribs see Donoghue v Stevenson 1932. Based upon Hadley v Baxendale (1854), breach of contract occurs when there is a disappointment to adhere to the terms of a valid contract.Ralf v XYZ plc (2015)As was already mentioned above, constructions sites are extremely dangerous environments, however, the employers or main contractors on site have the obligation to ensure the safety of any employees, contractors or visitors to the site in order to minimise any possible dangers. Ralf should be authorize to claim a compensation from XYZ plc to pay the medical treatments and cover the fiscal pressures from being unable to work, as the employers or main contractors on site have not done everything they could to stop him from being injured by Alex. Based upon Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company(1964), this is an example of breach of duty of care as XYZ plc failed to provide a duty of care towards Ralph, resulting in damage on the safety officer. The supervisors on duty shoul d be aware of what Alex was about to do and have stopped him. Duty of care is an obligation recognized by law requiring a person to conform to a certain standard of conduct for the protection of others.Finally, this assignment has provided an analysis of two cases. The first case is about Phil, a truck driver who is veneer legal issues for carelessly knocking down Colin, a cyclist, at the perimeter road of Heathrow Airport, causing him serious injurious. As a result, Hilary (Colins wife who was supposed to meet her husband at the traffic lights), witnessed the accident and sustained a nervous shock as a result. The second case relates to Ralph, a health and safety officer, who was hit by Alex, a construction worker who is also facing legal issues for moving a digger in order to get it out of the way of his truck. As a result, Ralf has sustained two broken ribs. Along with the analysis, the assignment also provides a recommendation on both cases in order for the claims to succeed.152 0 WordsReferencesHodge, S. (2004) Tort LAW, Devon Willan PublishingStone, R. (2008). The modern law of contract. London Routledge-Cavendish.Harvey, B. and Marston, J. (2009). Cases and commentary on tort. Oxford Oxford University Press.Elliot, E. and Quinn, F (2005) Tort Law. 5th ed. Essex. Pearson Education Ltd.Cooke, J. (2005),Law of Tort, 7thEdition.Pearson Essex.vLex, (2015).Garratt v Saxby, Court of Appeal well-bred Division, February 18, 2004, 2004 EWCA Civ 341,2004 1 WLR 2152 Case Law VLEX 52571340. online Available at http//court-appeal.vlex.co.uk/vid/-52571340 Accessed 6 whitethorn 2015Leighday.co.uk, (2015).Construction industry accident claims construction site compensation leighday.co.uk. online Available at http//www.leighday.co.uk/Illness-and-injury/Accident-and-personal-injury/Construction-industry-accident-claims Accessed 6 whitethorn 2015.Lawteacher.net, (2015).What is nervous shock? Law Teacher. online Available at http//www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/co mmon-law/what-is-nervous-shock.php Accessed 6 whitethorn 2015Findlaw, (2015).Bicycle Accidents FindLaw. online Available at http//injury.findlaw.com/car-accidents/bicycle-accidents.html Accessed 6 May 2015Irwin Mitchell, (2015).Construction Accident Compensation Claims Irwin Mitchell. online Available at http//www.irwinmitchell.com/personal/personal-injury-compensation/work-accident-illness-compensation-claims/construction-industry-accident-claims Accessed 6 May 2015