Issue
The matters involved in the case facts is if Rebecca can sue Michelle for negligence based on tort law and Rebecca?s decision to accept the ride home even if she knows that Michelle was drunk to drive.
Rule
The court needs to prove that Michelle has a duty of care to Rebecca. Secondly, there needs to be a breach of this duty due to the negligent conduct of Michelle. Thirdly, Rebecca should have suffered harm due to the duty of care infringed by Michelle. These three aspects of the tort of negligence along with the relevant defence that may be available to Michelle briefly discussed below.
Duty of Care
?Neighbor test? is the most common test arranged to ascertain whether in a given scenario, there was a duty of care or not. As per this …show more content…
The defense appropriate for the given case would be the voluntary assumption of risk (volenti non fit injuria) However, in a well-known case of Morris v Murray [1990] 3 All ER 801, the hurt as a result of assenting to take a lift from a drunk car driver. Michelle is not liable for negligence if Rebecca, is in full knowledge of the relevant facts, voluntarily places herself in a situation where Michelle could inflict loss or damage. By this, Rebecca has made the choice with regards to being exposed to the underlying risk, then the responsibility of injury in such scenario cannot be put entirely on Michelle as she chose to act as the neighbor even though she had the option not to do so. Rebecca knew that Michelle was intoxicated before she got into the car, and therefore, she assumed the risk that she would get into an accident and would be injured. The Court determines questions of contributory negligence by fact. To establish a contributory negligence as a result, in such cases, some blame for the damage would also be tolerated by Rebecca who also acted in a negligent manner. Michelle?s liability for Rebecca?s injury is limited because she also contributed to that injury by accepting the ride offered by
The matters involved in the case facts is if Rebecca can sue Michelle for negligence based on tort law and Rebecca?s decision to accept the ride home even if she knows that Michelle was drunk to drive.
Rule
The court needs to prove that Michelle has a duty of care to Rebecca. Secondly, there needs to be a breach of this duty due to the negligent conduct of Michelle. Thirdly, Rebecca should have suffered harm due to the duty of care infringed by Michelle. These three aspects of the tort of negligence along with the relevant defence that may be available to Michelle briefly discussed below.
Duty of Care
?Neighbor test? is the most common test arranged to ascertain whether in a given scenario, there was a duty of care or not. As per this …show more content…
The defense appropriate for the given case would be the voluntary assumption of risk (volenti non fit injuria) However, in a well-known case of Morris v Murray [1990] 3 All ER 801, the hurt as a result of assenting to take a lift from a drunk car driver. Michelle is not liable for negligence if Rebecca, is in full knowledge of the relevant facts, voluntarily places herself in a situation where Michelle could inflict loss or damage. By this, Rebecca has made the choice with regards to being exposed to the underlying risk, then the responsibility of injury in such scenario cannot be put entirely on Michelle as she chose to act as the neighbor even though she had the option not to do so. Rebecca knew that Michelle was intoxicated before she got into the car, and therefore, she assumed the risk that she would get into an accident and would be injured. The Court determines questions of contributory negligence by fact. To establish a contributory negligence as a result, in such cases, some blame for the damage would also be tolerated by Rebecca who also acted in a negligent manner. Michelle?s liability for Rebecca?s injury is limited because she also contributed to that injury by accepting the ride offered by