Issue: Whether Li Min can take some legal action to strike with her rights and whether Wang Wei or his employer which named Scuba Eats liable for the harm of Li Min?
Rules: This case refers to three parties, the plaintiff- Li Min, the defendants- Wang Wei and SucubaEats. This omission is in the category of negligence of tort law which is defined as the tortfeasor failed to take some reasonable measures to prevent loss, damage, and injury. First, the duty of care exists in any situation where one party get loss, damage or injury which is ‘reasonably foreseeable’, and the relationship between these two parties are ‘sufficiently close’ legally. Specifically, the duty of care exists in this case, the road users are expected to notice any circumnutates …show more content…
She was looking at her phone, and listening to music when she reached to the shared zone and ignore the bike which would hurt her. This performance also contributed to the injury, damage and loss of the complaint. See the Sibley v Kais, the defendant failed to give way to the car on his right side and they collided. in this case, the defendant obviously owes the plaintiff a duty of care and he need to undertake the due obligations. However, the defendant defence for himself as whether the only causation is his negligence. the court judged this case as the plaintiff assume 25% liability which is regarded as contributory responsibilities, because the plaintiff also has the duty of care to pay attention to the cars which on his left side. At the same circumnutates, Li Min found guilty of contributory negligence as the result of listening to music and looking at the phone when she walked in the street. Then, for another point, Li Min quit the part-time job recently because of boring, so she was unemployed is obvious risk, it was not the guilty of Wang Wei. Therefore, the loss of part-time job did not have enough evidence to prove the direct causation. In addition, from ‘but for’ test, if Wang Wei did not hurt Li Min, she also confronted to be fired. As the result, Wang Wei can defence Li Min of their respective shares in the responsibility for this injury, but, Li Min’s liability only account for merely percentage, and the majority liability is owed by the
Rules: This case refers to three parties, the plaintiff- Li Min, the defendants- Wang Wei and SucubaEats. This omission is in the category of negligence of tort law which is defined as the tortfeasor failed to take some reasonable measures to prevent loss, damage, and injury. First, the duty of care exists in any situation where one party get loss, damage or injury which is ‘reasonably foreseeable’, and the relationship between these two parties are ‘sufficiently close’ legally. Specifically, the duty of care exists in this case, the road users are expected to notice any circumnutates …show more content…
She was looking at her phone, and listening to music when she reached to the shared zone and ignore the bike which would hurt her. This performance also contributed to the injury, damage and loss of the complaint. See the Sibley v Kais, the defendant failed to give way to the car on his right side and they collided. in this case, the defendant obviously owes the plaintiff a duty of care and he need to undertake the due obligations. However, the defendant defence for himself as whether the only causation is his negligence. the court judged this case as the plaintiff assume 25% liability which is regarded as contributory responsibilities, because the plaintiff also has the duty of care to pay attention to the cars which on his left side. At the same circumnutates, Li Min found guilty of contributory negligence as the result of listening to music and looking at the phone when she walked in the street. Then, for another point, Li Min quit the part-time job recently because of boring, so she was unemployed is obvious risk, it was not the guilty of Wang Wei. Therefore, the loss of part-time job did not have enough evidence to prove the direct causation. In addition, from ‘but for’ test, if Wang Wei did not hurt Li Min, she also confronted to be fired. As the result, Wang Wei can defence Li Min of their respective shares in the responsibility for this injury, but, Li Min’s liability only account for merely percentage, and the majority liability is owed by the