Issues of Tort Liability - Case Study Example

Law of Tort 2.0. Bilal’s Factory 2 The case A fire breaks out at Bilal’s factory due to faulty wiring installed by Spark’s electricians. The fire brigade is called and leaves after the fire appears to have been extinguished. Unfortunately some embers are still smouldering and the fire flares up again during the night. Extensive damage occurs to completed orders and to machinery. The fire brigade is called again and Chris one of the firemen suffers lung damage from smoke inhalation. As a result of the fire the factory is closed for three months. Bilal loses stock worth £15,000 and is unable to meet the orders he was working on at the time of the fire. These are worth £6,000. The worst problem though is that he loses customers. His profits have been reduced by £60,000 compared to last year, Discuss any issues of tort liability arising from the above scenario. (45% marks) 2.2. Analysis of the case In analysing this case, determination of negligence takes precedence so that the person and or entity liable for the tort can be identified. From the statement of the case, one thing is certain – the case is quite complicated. It is highly probable that two parties are liable for tort1. Firstly, negligence is suspected on the part of Spark’s electricians. Spark would then be the primary defendant and his electricians will be accessories to the tort. The elements of negligence are: (1) duty of care (2) breach of this duty (3) breach causing harm in effect and (4) harm must not be too remote a consequence of the breach2. Duty of care is established by way of a three-step test. The test will be described here and applied in the case of Spark’s electricians. The first step is – reasonable foreseeability of harm. As the fire is caused by faulty wiring, there is an obviously reasonable foreseeability of harm from fire due to faulty wiring. The second test – claimant and defendant ought to be in a relationship of proximity. It was Spark’s electricians who installed the wiring on Bilal’s factory. Since the case statement given in the preceding section did not elaborate on any details, it is apparent that Spark’s electricians were commissioned by Bilal to work on the electrical wiring of the factory. Hence, Spark’s relationship to Bilal could probably be one of electrical contractor – client relationship. At this point a relationship of proximity is established. The third test – is to answer the question of whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose liability to impose liability on the defendant for his negligent actions. In this regard, had it not been for faulty wiring, no fire would have broke out in Bilal’s factory. The burden of proof lies in the fire investigator to establish that, indeed, it was faulty wiring which triggered the fire, beyond reasonable doubt. Once the origin of the fire is confirmed to be due to faulty wiring, it would then be fair, just and reasonable to sue Spark for tort due to negligence. From available case data, and granting that a confirmation is made as to the origin of the fire being faulty wiring, duty of care would have been established. Next, there is a need to show that such duty of care has been breached3. By installing faulty wirings on Bilal’s factory, Spark’s electricians exhibited behaviour below the threshold of a “reasonable man” since conscientious and responsible electricians would not have utilized and installed faulty wiring for their client’s factory. Based on case data, there is good reason to believe that duty of care has, indeed, been breached. Causation should then provide evidence of a direct association between the negligent behaviour of the Spark’s electricians and Bilat, the claimant’s damages and losses4. The liability on negligent behaviour is established when duty of care owed by Spark’s electricians to Bilal is breached as shown in the preceding paragraph. Causation of losses and damages are said to have been precipitated by such breach of duty of care, so that it is just reasonable for Spark and his electricians to compensate Bilal for the losses and damages. The first complication in this case is the role played by the fire brigade, who are believed to have also been negligent in the performance of their duties. Duty of care by the fire brigade is also stablished by way of the three-step test. The first step is – reasonable foreseeability of harm. As the second fire is caused by embers left by the fire brigade while still smouldering and the fire flaring up again in the night, there is reasonable, foreseeability of harm from fire due to embers left burning by the fire brigade. This is, however, harder to prove in the court of law. The second test – claimant and defendant ought to be in a relationship of proximity. The case statement indicated that the fire brigade was called upon the put out both the first and the second fires which broke out. Hence, the fire brigade’s relationship to Bilal is emergency service provider (firefighting) – client relationship. At this point a relationship of proximity is established. The third test – is to answer the question of whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose liability to impose liability on the defendant for his negligent actions. In this case, had it not been for negligently leaving embers burning during the first fire, no second would have broke out in Bilal’s factory. There is no burden of proof in this regard since, indeed, a second fire broke out which suggests that the fire was not totally put out. Unless the fire investigation would come up with evidence that the second fire was initiated through another cause, it would be fair, just and reasonable to sue the fire brigade for tort due to negligence. To show that such duty of care has been breached, it should be stressed that the fire brigade also exhibited behaviour below the threshold of “reasonable men” when they left the fire scene without double-checking if the fire had been completely put out. Hence, there also good reason to believe that duty of care has been breached. Causation should offer proof of a direct linkage between the negligent behaviour of the fire brigade and Bilat, the claimant’s damages and losses5. Causation of losses and damages are said to have been caused jointly with Spark’s electricians for such breach of duty of care. It is also just reasonable for the fire brigade to compensate Bilal for the losses and damages. 2.3. References Harlow, C. 2005. Understanding tort law. 3rd ed. London: Sweet and Maxwell. Madden, M. S. ed. 2005. Exploring tort law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stephenson, G. 2000. Sourcebook on torts. 2nd ed. London: Cavendish Publishing. Weinrib, E. J. 2003. Tort law: cases and materials. 2nd ed. Toronto: Edmond Montgomery Publications. Read More