Issue 1: Duty of Care
The first issue involved in Michelle and Rebecca case is, did Michelle the defendant owe the plaintiff Rebecca duty of care under law of tort when Michelle offered Rebecca a ride home when she was drunk. Duty of care is referred to the legal responsibility which is compulsory to any individual that requires the reasonable care when performing any act that could direct or indirectly harm others. An essential element of duty of care is foreseeability.
Rule 1
In relation to this, the rule of negligent is, the defendant owes duty of care not to harm the neighbour, and however he or she does not owe duty of care to save the neighbour. This is clearly stated in the historical case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932). In this …show more content…
Besides that Michelle directly made an approach to Rebecca to offer her a ride even though she knew she was drunk, this supports the statement that her intoxication caused the accident. It is also an actual cause because if Michelle wasn’t drunk she would have listen to Rebecca’s appeals to stop the car. A reasonable person would have listened to their passenger. Therefore this makes it obvious that the cause of the damage was due to the driver consuming alcohol before …show more content…
A crucial element of damage is, the defendant will not be liable for damages that are too remote. The aim of damage in law of torts is to place the plaintiff in the position they would have been in had the tort not taken place, and also to compensate the plaintiff.
Rule 4
Under the law of tort, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s negligence caused the damage and that it was not too remote. Damages can be divided into two parts, essentially special damage which consists of the cost of repair to damaged property and medical expense. And general damage on the other hand involves loss of future earning and medical expense. Rules and case relating to this case is, The wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), s.26, Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v. Mort’s Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd (no.1) (1961)
Application 4
In regarding the case, Rebecca did sustain serious injury including a broken, due to her broken leg; Rebecca might have gained more expense from medical and legal fees. Based on the breach of duty and causation elements examined above, Michelle action of drink driving is a direct consequence of her injury and future financial loss that Rebecca would incur in the future.
Conclusion 4
Since Rebecca suffered a broken leg from the accident. The courts will presume that the damage was not remote and was actually caused by
The first issue involved in Michelle and Rebecca case is, did Michelle the defendant owe the plaintiff Rebecca duty of care under law of tort when Michelle offered Rebecca a ride home when she was drunk. Duty of care is referred to the legal responsibility which is compulsory to any individual that requires the reasonable care when performing any act that could direct or indirectly harm others. An essential element of duty of care is foreseeability.
Rule 1
In relation to this, the rule of negligent is, the defendant owes duty of care not to harm the neighbour, and however he or she does not owe duty of care to save the neighbour. This is clearly stated in the historical case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932). In this …show more content…
Besides that Michelle directly made an approach to Rebecca to offer her a ride even though she knew she was drunk, this supports the statement that her intoxication caused the accident. It is also an actual cause because if Michelle wasn’t drunk she would have listen to Rebecca’s appeals to stop the car. A reasonable person would have listened to their passenger. Therefore this makes it obvious that the cause of the damage was due to the driver consuming alcohol before …show more content…
A crucial element of damage is, the defendant will not be liable for damages that are too remote. The aim of damage in law of torts is to place the plaintiff in the position they would have been in had the tort not taken place, and also to compensate the plaintiff.
Rule 4
Under the law of tort, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s negligence caused the damage and that it was not too remote. Damages can be divided into two parts, essentially special damage which consists of the cost of repair to damaged property and medical expense. And general damage on the other hand involves loss of future earning and medical expense. Rules and case relating to this case is, The wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), s.26, Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v. Mort’s Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd (no.1) (1961)
Application 4
In regarding the case, Rebecca did sustain serious injury including a broken, due to her broken leg; Rebecca might have gained more expense from medical and legal fees. Based on the breach of duty and causation elements examined above, Michelle action of drink driving is a direct consequence of her injury and future financial loss that Rebecca would incur in the future.
Conclusion 4
Since Rebecca suffered a broken leg from the accident. The courts will presume that the damage was not remote and was actually caused by