Tort law
Name
Institution
Facts
Alan suffered a heart attack while driving and lost control of his car. The car collided with a stall from which Bill was selling tea to passersby. Bill was not injured by the collision but the sudden jolt caused him to drop a kettle, which he was holding, and the burned his hand. A group of children and their teacher who were walking towards the stall ran into the road to avoid the collision. Dave who was driving along the road swerved to avoid hitting the children and was injured when his car collided with a tree. He was not wearing a seat belt at the time. The scalding on Bills hand exacerbates and underlying condition requiring skin grafting operations.
Issue
Is Allan liable for the injuries …show more content…
The plank ignited petrol vapor in the hold and an explosion resulted sinking the ship. The court held that the defendant was liable. Although the fire was not foreseeable, the defendant was liable for all the direct consequences of the act. The damage from the explosion was not too remote and was a direct consequence of the negligent act. The court reasoned that if an act causes damage, it is immaterial whether the damage was expected provided the damage can be directly traced to the negligent act.
In Scott v Shepherd (1773), the defendant threw a squid into a crowded market place. Other patrons threw around the squid until it accidentally struck the plaintiff and injured him. The question in this case is whether the injury suffered by the plaintiff was as a result of a force of the original act. The court held that the defendant was liable because the others were not free agents but acting out of the necessity of their own safety and …show more content…
It provides that where an individual suffers harm as a result of his fault and partly the fault of the defendant, the damages shall be reduced to the extent that is equitable with regard to the share of responsibility (Zipursky, 2012). In Sayers v Harlow (1958) a woman was trapped in a public toilet.as she was attempting to climb out of the toilet she steeped on the toilet and then on the toilet roll holder but the toilet roll holder gave way and she was injured. The court held that the harm suffered was a direct consequence of the defendant’s negligence, but the claimant had been careless in stepping on the toilet roll holder and the damages would be reduced by 25 percent (Deakin, Johnston, and Markensis, 2012).
In Allan’s case, he is liable to the harm cause to Bill and Dave. Although Bill had an underlying condition which was exacerbated by the scalding as a result of the accident, Allan is still liable. In Smith v Leech Brain & Co. the position is that, the defendant is liable for the harm even in situations where the plaintiff had a predisposition, which made the damage more severe. In Dave’s situation, Allan is partly liable for the injury suffered by Dave because Dave contributed to t6he injury by not wearing a
Name
Institution
Facts
Alan suffered a heart attack while driving and lost control of his car. The car collided with a stall from which Bill was selling tea to passersby. Bill was not injured by the collision but the sudden jolt caused him to drop a kettle, which he was holding, and the burned his hand. A group of children and their teacher who were walking towards the stall ran into the road to avoid the collision. Dave who was driving along the road swerved to avoid hitting the children and was injured when his car collided with a tree. He was not wearing a seat belt at the time. The scalding on Bills hand exacerbates and underlying condition requiring skin grafting operations.
Issue
Is Allan liable for the injuries …show more content…
The plank ignited petrol vapor in the hold and an explosion resulted sinking the ship. The court held that the defendant was liable. Although the fire was not foreseeable, the defendant was liable for all the direct consequences of the act. The damage from the explosion was not too remote and was a direct consequence of the negligent act. The court reasoned that if an act causes damage, it is immaterial whether the damage was expected provided the damage can be directly traced to the negligent act.
In Scott v Shepherd (1773), the defendant threw a squid into a crowded market place. Other patrons threw around the squid until it accidentally struck the plaintiff and injured him. The question in this case is whether the injury suffered by the plaintiff was as a result of a force of the original act. The court held that the defendant was liable because the others were not free agents but acting out of the necessity of their own safety and …show more content…
It provides that where an individual suffers harm as a result of his fault and partly the fault of the defendant, the damages shall be reduced to the extent that is equitable with regard to the share of responsibility (Zipursky, 2012). In Sayers v Harlow (1958) a woman was trapped in a public toilet.as she was attempting to climb out of the toilet she steeped on the toilet and then on the toilet roll holder but the toilet roll holder gave way and she was injured. The court held that the harm suffered was a direct consequence of the defendant’s negligence, but the claimant had been careless in stepping on the toilet roll holder and the damages would be reduced by 25 percent (Deakin, Johnston, and Markensis, 2012).
In Allan’s case, he is liable to the harm cause to Bill and Dave. Although Bill had an underlying condition which was exacerbated by the scalding as a result of the accident, Allan is still liable. In Smith v Leech Brain & Co. the position is that, the defendant is liable for the harm even in situations where the plaintiff had a predisposition, which made the damage more severe. In Dave’s situation, Allan is partly liable for the injury suffered by Dave because Dave contributed to t6he injury by not wearing a