Reparation Law & Evidence - Assignment Example

?Claim Laws Claim Laws Legal claims from a plaintiff to a defendant concerning a dispute follow several procedures and are diverse in nature. They can range from money claims to compensation claims.1 Many instances incorporate the law of tort, which acts to assist claimants and victims of wrongdoing from other individuals or defendants. Torts law may be involved in criminal cases where there may be a liability against the state or in contract law where compensation may be used to settle a case.2 Any person may incorporate tort law when suing another party for any wrongdoing. Companies and drivers may receive claims under tort law when they get involved in a wrongful act against the claimant. Introduction When a claimant seeks compensation to harm incurred from a situation or individual, the most desirable means of settling the dispute would be by incorporation of alternative dispute resolution tactics without necessarily going to a court trial.3 Such techniques may include use of arbitrators, or regulators to deliver resolved the dispute or by offering an opinion on the matter that may assist the parties in dispute to resolve the dispute. Before claim, other key areas to note include the economic status of the defendant. If the defendant is bankrupt and has no property of value or in debt, it may be unwise to seek payment since it would only cost the plaintiff legal fees which they may never be able to recover.4 In such a case, if still necessary to make a claim, it would be wise to state an amount and the time of payment, as well. United Kingdom laws require that compensation claims against a wrongdoing have adequate evidence that explicitly shows the actual instance of wrongdoing. This may be in the form of witnesses or a document footage, which must all be presented to the court handling the case. Without proper evidence, it is quite impossible to follow up a successful claim against a defendant.5 There are claims involving companies, well noted in company law. Such cases include breach of contracts, whether by a company or an individual. Such cases, usually seek compensation for the required service or product stated in the contract, where one party did not meet the end of their bargain, or acted against provisions in the contract.6 Cheryl acquires injuries on her face, after being hit by a pedal from Lizzie’s bike after it was run over by Donnas’ car to the point that she could not see through her right eye. She cannot be able drive for at least a week. This inconveniences her from attending a concert, hence losing money used to purchase tickets to that concert. Cheryl earns her living as a model, and because of the injuries incurred, she cannot attend an audition as well as a photo shoot for an advert for a company. Cheryl has several claims that she could be able to pursue in the case of her situation. The UK law provides that she can make a whiplash personal injury claim. She could direct the claim to either Lizzie, the bike’s owner, to Donna, who smashed Lizzie’s bike and finally to Donald, the car owner who initially hit Lizzie. The claim against Lizzie would have a basis on the aspect that Lizzie did not wait for the lights to turn green before she started crossing the road, and in the event, she is at the centre of an accident involving Lizzie and Donald’s car. The basis on such a claim would be that Lizzie was careless and that she did not follow traffic regulations that require her to wait until the lights are green before she crosses the road. She could use either Donald or Donna as her witnesses since both of them were present at the time of the accident.7 Donald would be a better witness, since he would also be trying to ward of blame on hitting Lizzie. He would, therefore, make a strong support for Cheryl’s claim against Lizzie. Towards Donna, Cheryl can make a personal injury claim based on the aspect that she was the one who runs over Lizzie’s bike, and in the event, a pedal comes off, only to hit Cheryl on the face.8 The case will be strong if she takes the angle of negligence and carelessness while driving in the case of Donna. She would use Lizzie as a witness, since she also suffered the run on from Donna.9 However, this may not be the best angle to approach the case when seeking compensation for her injury. Finally, on Donald, Cheryl can claim that he did not observe traffic rules by driving past the red lights signal. This caused him to hit Lizzie, and as a result, Donna runs over Lizzie’s bike lying on the road, eventually instigating the injury on Cheryl. The case would be strengthened by claims of negligence and dangerous driving by Donald. In such a case, it would be advisable to settle the case outside courtrooms since Donald, in his defense may claim that the injury on Cheryl was circumstantial, and he could have had no role in instigating it. In all her personal injury claims, she could also seek compensation on the money lost due to her inability to drive to a concert.10 Another claim that Cheryl could have pursued would cover her career ruin. Cheryl is a model, and she cannot attend an advert audition, which she made it among shortlisted 20 other models only. It would not be impossible for Cheryl to qualify, because there is another advert that she features. In fact, she could use the fact that she is already on another advert; she was tipped to be selected for the job. She could seek claims to Donald, Lizzie or Donna. Her evidence and argument would be similar to those on her personal injury claims, where she could point out blame to Donald and Lizzie for committing traffic offences hence causing the accident that led to her getting injured.11 According to the UK provisions of law, her strongest case would be against Donna, since she is the primary instigator of injury by means of running over Lizzie’s bike. For Lizzie and Donald, the case could take an angle of circumstantial incident. For Donna, however, she could be accused of having already seen Lizzie on the road and she should have been careful and keen while driving.12 Such a claim, however, would be difficult to go through, majorly because she did not sustain serious injuries that would persist throughout her lifetime. The defendant would use the doctor’s report to indicate that, Cheryl would be okay within a week and her injuries were just circumstantial to her location at the time of the accident.13 Lizzie cycles through a crossroad, after taking note that the lights to cars driving perpendicular to her were red. She is knocked by Donald who goes past the red lights and later on, her bike is run over by Donnas’ car from behind. In the incident, full damage to her bike occurs and, she sustains injuries, to the extent of breaking her left arm and leg and a minor concussion. In all this events, she cannot go to work, and it is right to assume that she does not do so for some time. Lizzie’s first claim would be on personal injury. Citing case studies from the House of Lords, she would direct this claim specifically to Donald.14 She would make a strong case by pointing out that Donald ignored the red lights signal. According to the provisions from the House of Lords in such cases, she would point out negligence and dangerous driving as aggravating factors in the case against Donald. Negligence would be because he should have noted Lizzie on the road, while dangerous driving would be based on the aspect of committing a traffic offence by ignoring red lights.15 In this claim, Lizzie should ask for compensation for her hospital costs and trauma she experiences in the accident. She would also seek payment for her legal fees, since there incurrence happens due to circumstances instigated by Donald. However, Lizzie would be wise to settle the case outside the courtroom, since Donald, in his defense could point out the fact that Lizzie did not also observe traffic rules since she cycled through before the lights turned green on her road.16 Lizzie would be wise to utilize Donna, as a witness, since she was driving and high are the chances that she was also looking at the lights. Footage from surveillance cameras, as well as any other driver on the front row of either road, would also be appropriate witnesses. She would also enhance her case against Donald, if she obtains a police report indicating the status of the accident and specifically pointing out blame on Donald due to his negligence of traffic lights. In the case of personal injury, Lizzie would also make claims to Donald’s car insurer for compensation on her injuries.17 She would point out the mistake by Donald to the extent of knocking her down, leaving her with a broken arm and leg as well as a concussion. In this claim, she would also ask for compensation of hospital fees incurred as well as the inconvenience she faces while going to work.18 It is a crime to lack a third-party insurance by motorists according to UK laws on motoring, and, therefore, Lizzie would be sure to receive compensation. A police report would also be helpful in such a case, and again, it would be advisable to settle the case outside the courtroom. UK law provisions on property allow Lizzie to pursue a claim on property damage against both Donna and Donald. In this case, she would point out the damage incurred on her bike, when Donald knocked her and subsequently Donna run over her. The evidence to produce in court or a settlement hearing would be the wrecked bike.19 She would cite negligence and dangerous driving to both drivers. She could also cite malicious driving as an aggravating factor against the case on Donald, where she could pose a question as to what intent Donald had in jumping red lights only at the instance Lizzie cycled across. To support her argument in this case, Lizzie would be wise to use Cheryl as a witness since she incurred an injury from a pedal that flew over to her when Donna run over Lizzie’s bike. It would strengthen her case if she sought a police report on the extent of damage to her bike during the accident. In this claim, she would be seeking compensation for her bike, mostly in monetary terms.20 David has tickets for a Coldplay concert that he is to attend accompanied by Cheryl, whom is the designated driver. Due to injuries she sustains from the accident involving Lizzie, Donald and Donna, on her face, she cannot drive for at least a week. This ensures that both David and she will not attend the concert hence losing out on the cash spent. David’s only claim would be on money spent for the tickets. The case would be addressed to a county court that deals with small claims of money. He could direct the case on Lizzie, Donna or Donald; determined by who takes blame as the cause of the accident. His main evidence would be based a lot on a police report, clearly stating who the culprit is for the occurrence of the accident. He could consider getting an attachment of earnings order from the court directed to the defendant’s employer to seek deduction of the defendant’s earnings.21 David’s claim is exceedingly weak, and chances of him getting any evidence to support the claim that he lost his money because of either defendant are remarkably slim.22 His only witness would be Cheryl; who unless proves that Donald, Donna or Lizzie were responsible for her injuries, would not help much. His case would have to provide evidence of malice either against him or Cheryl by any of the defendants to enhance it.23 Otherwise, the case would be taken as a circumstantial resultant, which does not have a basis to the accident. Best advice would be to avoid claiming, and if that necessary, outside the courtroom. Bellisima is a cosmetic company that has contracted Cheryl as a model for an advert. Due to the injury she incurs in the accident; Cheryl cannot model for a week, and this ensures that Bellisima has to postpone a photo shoot till Cheryl is well. Postponement of the shoot, led to company loses to the tune of 500,000 Euros for booking fees also in retention costs. Bellisima could pursue a money claim on Donald, Lizzie or Donna. Previous cases of such nature from the House of Lords would help develop a case against the three, subject to evidence as to which one of them played the leading role in causing the accident. It would be dependent on an independent report clearly laying blame to either three for the injuries on Cheryl. However, this case would be exceedingly difficult since, it would not be easy to prove that any of the parties had a role in postponement of the photo shoot.24 Bellisima has no or remarkably little chances of getting paid in their claim for money. This is because the defendant would easily counter the case against them by a claim of circumstantial occurrence on Cheryl. It cannot be proven that they had any malice against Cheryl, validating a reason as to why Cheryl would get injuries. Before making the money claim, Bellisima would have to profile the defendants before pursuing a claim to establish the financial capability or property owned by them. This is to ensure that they receive payment, if they would win the claim.25 Bankrupt or individuals without property would be difficult to follow up in payment. Bellisima could also make a claim against Cheryl on the basis of contract breach.26 The damage claim would be termed expectation damages, which expects the plaintiff to receive a service or product from another party. In this case, Cheryl is expected to be present and model for a photo shoot for an advert for Bellisima. She does model, and the shoot gets postponed. In their contract with Cheryl, there is an expectation that she will be there to model for their advert. Still on the case of breach of contract, Bellisima could claim of consequential damages, which led to, loss of money due to lack of contract fulfillment by Cheryl. In both of these claims, Bellisima would seek compensation for losses incurred.27 They would either ask for monetary payments or may settle for a deal with Cheryl, where she would have to offer her services free or lower rates for a period of time.28 However, in such a case, Cheryl could counter their claims by proving that, she did not have any role in not appearing for the photo shoot, and that it is the circumstances involving her injuries that ensured that she does not take place. With such an argument, Bellisima would find it difficult to prove that Cheryl purported to miss the shoot. It would also be advisable if the company would seek to settle the matter without a trial since it would ease the process of getting into a settlement deal with Cheryl. This is because Cheryl is their employee and using that aspect of superiority Cheryl would be compelled more to agree rather than spend a lot in legal fees to defend herself in a trial.29 This accident gives a brilliant example of claim cases, where involved parties can lay claims on supposed wrongdoings to them. There are claims on personal injury, property damage, money and even breach of contract. Such a case scenario, however, best dealt with outside the courtroom since every person involved has a different view to what is fact and what is not. Involvement of an arbitrator or regulator would be an added advantage of settling the case without a trial.30 However, an independent report, maybe from the police, would also add value in settling some of the claims, like those on personal injury and property damage. Such a report would require proper analysis and scrutiny, based on all evidence available to come up with valid conclusions on who gets the blame for the issues in dispute. It is also noted that, most of the counter arguments would dominate on circumstantial occurrences, where those claiming suffered mostly because of their location at that time.31 Bibliography Alpa, G. Coester, M.& Markesinis, B. (2011) Compensation for Personal Injury in English, German and Italian Law: A Comparative Outline. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Baker, K. & Wilkinson, B.(2011). Professional Risk Taking and Defensible Decisions in H. Kemshall and B. Wilkinson (eds), Good Practice in Assessing Risk: Current Knowledge, Issues and Approaches London: Jessica Kingsley. Blum, B. (2010). Examples and Explanations: Contracts. Aspen Publishers: New Jersey. Cea, J. (2010). Self Defense for Vehicle and Traffic Court and Small Claims.Authorhouse: Bloomington. Duncan, M.& Marsh, C. (2004). Fatal Accident Claims. Legacy Books. Edwards, L. Edwards, S. & Wells, P. (2011). Tort Law. Delmar Cengage Learning, Michigan. Frey, M. (2007) Introduction to the Law of Contracts. Delmar, Cengage Learning: Michigan. Gardner, J.(2011). Relations of Responsibility in Rowan Cruft, Matthew Kramer and Mark. Reiff (eds), Crime, Punishment, and Responsibility: The Jurisprudence of Antony Duff Oxford University Press. Glannon, J. (2010). The Law of Torts: Examples and Explanations. Aspen Publishers, New Jersey. Goudkamp, J. (2011) Defenses to Negligence in Carolyn Sappideen and Prue Vines (eds), Fleming on the Law of Torts:Lawbook Co. Institute of Ideas. (2002) Compensation Crazy: Do we Blame and Claim too Much? Hodder and Stoughton: London. Isaac D. & Rothstein, T. (2007). Barron’s Legal- ease Claims Court Step by Step. Barron’s Educational Series, New York. Jai, J. (2004). Motor Accidents Claims: Law and Procedure Universal Law Publishing, New Jersey. Kevan, T. & Kwiatkowska, M. (2001). Fatal Accident Claims Legacy Books. Lucy, W. (2009). Abstraction and the Rule of Law: Journal of Oxford Legal Studies, 29, 3: 481-509. Matthew, J. (2009) How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim Legacy Books: Ontario. Neuhardt, S. (2001) Five Deadly Sins that can Wreck your Accident Claim: Legacy Books. Okrent, C. (2009) Torts and Personal Injury. Delmar Cengage Learning:Michigan. Phillips,J. Chippendale, S.& Simon, R. (2004). Who Pays for Car Accidents?: Legacy Books. Pila, J.(2012) Sewing the Fly Buttons on the Statute: Employee Inventions and the Employment Context: 32 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. Pirie, F. (2010). Law before Government Journal of Oxford Legal Studies, 30, 2: 207-228. Raymond, P. (2001). Separation Agreements under the English Law, Harvard Law Review Vol 15, 8, 638-656. Rowley, J. (2009). Liability in Personal Injury. The Journal of Personal Injury Law, 12, 5: 265-282. Shearwood, B. (2004). Road Traffic Accidents. Solicitor’s Journal, 155. 31: 458-472. Shukaitis, M. (2001). A Market in Personal Injury: The Journal of Legal Studies, 16, 2:3299- 349. Speidel, R & Ayres, I. (2008). Studies in Contract Law. Foundation Press: New York. Vossen, V. (2006). Assessing Law’s Claim to Authority. The Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 31,3: 481-501. Warde, D. (2010). The Law of Motorcars and Motor Accidents. Gale Publishers: Michigan. Warner, R. (2004) Everybody’s Guide to Small Claims Court. Nolo Publishers: California. Zevin, M. (2001) How to Settle Your Own Personal Injury Case Without Trial. Citadel Publishers: New York. Read More