Business Law Essay

2485 Words Nov 9th, 2013 10 Pages
Soo Clumsy can sue Tesko under law of tort. Tort is a civil wrong or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidentally which unfairly causes someone to suffer loss or harm from another party and this is lead to action to civil court. There are two ways to occur in civil liability which is either a breach of contract or a tort having been committed. Liability of tort is not undertaken voluntarily and its’ applied by the courts on the basis that certain types of conduct ensure the imposition of tortious liability. Examples of tort situations are negligence, nuisance, trespassing, defamation, occupiers’ and vicarious liabilities. In Soo’s case, emphasis is given to law of negligence.
In Soo’s case, she can claim under the negligence from
…show more content…
House of Lord held that to ensure the ultimate users do not injured by using their products is a duty of care owed by manufacturer. This care established the modern law of negligence and the neighbour principle. Lord Atkin: ‘You must take reasonable care to avoid acts and omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.’ In addition, Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004 House of Lords [2] held that a duty of care was owed by the home office for their omission as they were in a position of control over the foreseeable damage which caused by third party and would result from their inaction. In Haley v London Electricity Board [1965] AC 778 House of Lords [3] held that the breach of duty was in defendant. A blind person might walk down to the street is foreseeable and they should be given proper protection. In contrast, Topp v London Country Bus [1993] 1 WLR 976 Court of Appeal [4] case held that the acts of the third party could not be foreseeable and the duty of care was not in bus company. However, the court will consider the relationship between the parties, the type of risk involved and whether or not it would be in the

Related Documents