I am writing to discuss the liability requirements in the tort of negligence, regarding the case of Mrs. Smith being severely injured by Mr. John Sherwood, when, due to his negligence he crashed into Mrs. Smith’s car causing her to break her back and be hospitalized, which resulted in her missing work till this day. The events occurred on the 12/12/12 at around 5.40pm.
In the English law, negligence is the most accessed tort as well as important. The word tort is French and which is translated as ‘wrong’ in English. The meaning is ‘a wrong that entitles the injured party to claim compensation from the wrongdoer’, in other words, a person who is negligent by acting carelessly towards another, when they are legally obligated to be careful, …show more content…
For example, if a car would crash into another, the case of proximity would be time and space, but not relationship, even if it was to be the car of someone you know or related to, relationship would not be relevant. Relationship is only relevant if the actions were foreseeable because of this. An example would be Bourhill v Young, where a woman, the claimant, heard a motorcycle going past her, and after that she heard it crash, but did not see it happen. Afterwards, when went to see what had happened, and had seen the dead motorcyclist. She had a miscarriage due to the shock and stress post the accident. However, the defender did not owe her duty of care, as the claimant went to the scene voluntarily, and in case of proximity, she was not there during the time the accident happened to see it. On the contrary, in the McLoughlin v O’Brian, 1983 case, the claimant, Mrs. McLoughlin was informed that her husband and children were involved in a grave accident. She was not present during the accident, however, she went to the hospital as soon as possible, where she found out that one of her children was dead and the other two and her husband were still dirty and in serious conditions. This led her to suffer from shock and stress. It was later decided that the offender owed her duty of care, even if she was not present during the accident, but because of the relationship …show more content…
Similarly to the learner driver, if you go to the doctors, you would expect them to treat you with “high” standard even if it was to be their first time. Their standard is decided using two questions; ‘does the conduct of the defendant fall below the standard of the ordinary competent professional?’ and ‘is there a substantial body of opinion within the profession that would support the course taken by the defendant’. If the first question is answered ‘no’ and the second is ‘yes’, then duty of care would not have been broken by the defendant, as the right standards has been met. For example, in Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee, 1957, where the claimant, Mr. Bolam, was a patient at Friern Hospital due to mental health problems. He was recommended to undergo electro-convulsive therapy, electric shocks. A muscle relaxant was not given to him, and there was no body restrains. He was also not warned about the dangers and consequences, which were serious injuries. He sued the Management Committee for recompense, arguing that they were negligent as they did not sedate or restrain him and failed to warn him about the dangers of this procedure. However, it was concluded that they had reached the standards so did not break their duty of care.
Also, in the Roe v Minister of Health, 1961, where the Roe had been injected with an anesthetic. Prior to this, the containers had been put in an antiseptic solution, which was
In the English law, negligence is the most accessed tort as well as important. The word tort is French and which is translated as ‘wrong’ in English. The meaning is ‘a wrong that entitles the injured party to claim compensation from the wrongdoer’, in other words, a person who is negligent by acting carelessly towards another, when they are legally obligated to be careful, …show more content…
For example, if a car would crash into another, the case of proximity would be time and space, but not relationship, even if it was to be the car of someone you know or related to, relationship would not be relevant. Relationship is only relevant if the actions were foreseeable because of this. An example would be Bourhill v Young, where a woman, the claimant, heard a motorcycle going past her, and after that she heard it crash, but did not see it happen. Afterwards, when went to see what had happened, and had seen the dead motorcyclist. She had a miscarriage due to the shock and stress post the accident. However, the defender did not owe her duty of care, as the claimant went to the scene voluntarily, and in case of proximity, she was not there during the time the accident happened to see it. On the contrary, in the McLoughlin v O’Brian, 1983 case, the claimant, Mrs. McLoughlin was informed that her husband and children were involved in a grave accident. She was not present during the accident, however, she went to the hospital as soon as possible, where she found out that one of her children was dead and the other two and her husband were still dirty and in serious conditions. This led her to suffer from shock and stress. It was later decided that the offender owed her duty of care, even if she was not present during the accident, but because of the relationship …show more content…
Similarly to the learner driver, if you go to the doctors, you would expect them to treat you with “high” standard even if it was to be their first time. Their standard is decided using two questions; ‘does the conduct of the defendant fall below the standard of the ordinary competent professional?’ and ‘is there a substantial body of opinion within the profession that would support the course taken by the defendant’. If the first question is answered ‘no’ and the second is ‘yes’, then duty of care would not have been broken by the defendant, as the right standards has been met. For example, in Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee, 1957, where the claimant, Mr. Bolam, was a patient at Friern Hospital due to mental health problems. He was recommended to undergo electro-convulsive therapy, electric shocks. A muscle relaxant was not given to him, and there was no body restrains. He was also not warned about the dangers and consequences, which were serious injuries. He sued the Management Committee for recompense, arguing that they were negligent as they did not sedate or restrain him and failed to warn him about the dangers of this procedure. However, it was concluded that they had reached the standards so did not break their duty of care.
Also, in the Roe v Minister of Health, 1961, where the Roe had been injected with an anesthetic. Prior to this, the containers had been put in an antiseptic solution, which was