The case deals with delict, part of the law of obligations. Although delict deals with wrongdoings it is not part of criminal law but civil law (Scottish Courts and Tribunals, 2016), sourced from common law such as Judicial Precedent, “Donoghue v Stevenson, 1932” (Wylie and Crossan 2010:305). Therefore, in cases involving delict, burden of proof is judged on the balance of probability. The procedure for civil cases in Scottish courts starts at a Sherriff Court, if appealed goes to the Court of Sessions and then to the Supreme Court (Scottish Courts and Tribunals, 2016). Delictual cases can both include civil and criminal aspects such as “Ashton v Turner” (Wylie and Crossan 2010:339). Criminal and civil wrongdoings however are seen as separate
…show more content…
Saphena has a duty of care to other employees she works with to keep them safe (Health and Safety at Work Act 1974), and it is reasonably foreseeable that being distracted while carrying a hot drink can lead to an accident. Making coffee for her employer may not be on her job description as an ‘office junior’ but it is still in the scope of her employment. A case that illustrating this is “Rose v Plenty (1976)” (Wylie and Crossan 2010:601). Therefore, Saphena’s negligent makes her employee liable too. For Colin to claim psychiatric injury he must be (but not excluded to) a primary victim of the accident. Someone who witnessed or was involved with the accident first hand (Wylie and Crossan 2010:331). He must also prove he has a psychiatric injury and that the accident was the only cause (Wylie and Crossan …show more content…
HeatEasy Ltd can use the defense that they took reasonable care by placing warning signs to give people notice that there was a danger. They could use CCTV to show how obvious the water and signs were. A case they could use in their defense would be “Latimer v AEC (1952)” (Wylie and Crossan 2010:313-314).
The hospital could also use this defense with the judgement based on the common practices of doctor’s in their profession (Wylie and Crossan 2010:310). They could also use Colin’s medical records to support this. A case to illustrate reasonable care is “Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee (1957)” (Wylie and Crossan 2010:310).
The driver of the car that hit Colin could also use ‘reasonable care’ as a defense. They would have to prove they were abiding by the speed limits, driving legally and not distracted. It is difficult to tell the outcome of this case without more information. It might depend on how visible Colin was to the driver and if the driver had enough time to react and
Saphena has a duty of care to other employees she works with to keep them safe (Health and Safety at Work Act 1974), and it is reasonably foreseeable that being distracted while carrying a hot drink can lead to an accident. Making coffee for her employer may not be on her job description as an ‘office junior’ but it is still in the scope of her employment. A case that illustrating this is “Rose v Plenty (1976)” (Wylie and Crossan 2010:601). Therefore, Saphena’s negligent makes her employee liable too. For Colin to claim psychiatric injury he must be (but not excluded to) a primary victim of the accident. Someone who witnessed or was involved with the accident first hand (Wylie and Crossan 2010:331). He must also prove he has a psychiatric injury and that the accident was the only cause (Wylie and Crossan …show more content…
HeatEasy Ltd can use the defense that they took reasonable care by placing warning signs to give people notice that there was a danger. They could use CCTV to show how obvious the water and signs were. A case they could use in their defense would be “Latimer v AEC (1952)” (Wylie and Crossan 2010:313-314).
The hospital could also use this defense with the judgement based on the common practices of doctor’s in their profession (Wylie and Crossan 2010:310). They could also use Colin’s medical records to support this. A case to illustrate reasonable care is “Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee (1957)” (Wylie and Crossan 2010:310).
The driver of the car that hit Colin could also use ‘reasonable care’ as a defense. They would have to prove they were abiding by the speed limits, driving legally and not distracted. It is difficult to tell the outcome of this case without more information. It might depend on how visible Colin was to the driver and if the driver had enough time to react and