Claims made by Hartman against Sandman, Continental and Dangerfield, Liability and Defenses Available - Case Study Example

Claims made by Hartman against sandman, continental and Dangerfield, liability and defenses available Hartmanclaims of negligence perpetrated by Dangerfield, continental and sandman falls under the law of torts and the law on corporate personality/ separate legal entities. The law of tort generally entails a civil wrong in the sense that it is perpetrated against an individual rather than a state. An individual in this context also includes entities like companies. Tort is generally defined as the civil wrong for which remedy is a common law action for unliquidated damages. A tort occurs as a result of a person’s duty to others which is created by one or more laws. A person who perpetrates a tort is referred to as a wrongdoer or a tortfeaser. A wrongdoing act of tort is referred to as a tortuous act (Stuhmcke 56). The principle goal of the law of tort is compensation of victims or their dependants. The generic pattern of tort comprises of an act or omission by the defendant which causes damage to the plaintiff. The damage has to be caused by the fault of the defendant, and the fault must be a form of harm acknowledged as attracting legal liability. The model of determining whether a tort occurred follows the act or omission leads to causation and faults a person’s protected interests, which results in personal damage and injury (Stuhmcke 60). By suing Dangerfield, continental and Sandman Corporation on basis of negligence, Hartman has to prove several things in a court of law. One, Hartman must prove that the three defendants owed her a duty of care. This concept is grounded in the ruling of the Donologhue v Stevenson case (1932) where the House of Lords turned down a previous law in which liability for careless behavior existed only in a number of separate, specified circumstances. The House of Lords asserted that general duty entails taking reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which one can reasonably foresee would likely injure your neighbor. A Neighbor in this context refers to persons who are so closely and directly affected by a another’s act that they ought to have them in contemplation as being so affected when another is directing his/her mind to the acts or omissions which are called into question (McLaughlin 63). In addition to establishing a duty of care, Hartman must further prove that the damage she suffered was foreseeable. This concept was advanced in Caparo v. Dickman (1990) case where it must be established that there was proximity between herself and the three companies. Contributory negligence defense In this case, Dangerfield, continental and Sandman Corporations have a defense in that they did owe a duty of care to Hartman. However, Hartman was not responsible for her own safety as she was negligent by walking in front of her car knowingly. As such, the three corporations can establish that Hartman was negligent and it is for that reason that she suffered the accident. Moreover, the defendants have a defense that Hartman did not read the contents of the receipt that indicated that the management was not responsible for damages incurred by valet parking customers. This concept is generally referred to as the plaintiff’s default or contributory negligence. For this defense to be relied, the defendants have to show that Hartman is to blame for her suffering. Dangerfield, continental and Sandman Corporations must prove that; Hartman exposed herself to the danger of being hit by walking in front of her car Hartman was negligent Hartman’s negligence/fault contributed to her suffering. These conditions have been met as explained above. Although contributory negligence is a popular defense in tort, the defense does not free the defendants from liability. It acts to reduce the amount of damages payable y the defendant to the extent of the plaintiff’s contribution. Once Hartman establishes that the three companies owed her a duty of care, she has to prove that the defendants were at fault. That means that Dangerfield, continental and Sandman Corporations were in breach of care. In order to establish that that Dangerfield, continental and Sandman Corporations were at fault, she must further show that Dangerfield, continental and Sandman Corporation owed her standard duty of care. Standard of care refers to the standard that a reasonable person would employ in the occupation or activity in question. In establishing this standard of care, there must be a balance on the degree of foreseeability or risk of harm against the cost of avoiding the harm, and the merits to society foregone if the activity at issue is not carried on. Setting a standard of care is a matter of fact. Additionally, Hartman must show that Dangerfield, continental and Sandman Corporations breach of duty caused the damage that she suffered. This concept is referred to as the ‘but-for’ test that poses the question as to whether the plaintiff has suffered loss or damage. If the answer is no, then the causation test is met. If the answer to the above question is yes, the defendant will not be liable, even if he has acted negligently. This concept is grounded on the concepts established in Fairchild v Glenhaven (2002) where plaintiff were negligently exposed to asbestos by several occupiers of properties where they had worked, and they were unable to say which breach of duty had caused the contraction of Mesothelioma. The House of Lords reply was to relax the causation rules. The action of a third party defense The defenses that the defendants have with regard to ‘but-for test’ is that it was the act of a third party. Hartman must show that the damage she suffered was too remote from the defendant’s negligence. By the verity that an employee of Continental Corporation caused the accident broke the chain of causation between the defendant’s act and the damage suffered. Dangerfield, continental and Sandman Corporations will also not be legally responsible for a type of damage which they could not reasonably have foreseen. Volenti non fit injuria defense In addition, Dangerfield, continental and Sandman Corporations have defense in that Hartman voluntarily assumed the risk. This concept is referred to as the volenti non fit injuria. Under this defense, Dangerfield, continental and Sandman Corporations can explain that Hartman had full knowledge of the risk and freely agreed to undertake the same. The risk in this concept relates to the act of giving Mitchell her car to park it on her behalf. Hartman ought to park the car by herself under the guidance of a car park attendant; Mitchell. Thus, Dangerfield, continental and Sandman Corporations have proof that Hartman had actual knowledge of nature and degree of the risk, and that she voluntarily agreed to incur the risk. This is reinforced by Tugwell V Bunnet (1971) case where the defendant’s automobile directly asserted that passengers rode at their own risk and the driver at the material time was drunk to the plaintiff’s knowledge but took a ride in the automobile and was injured. The defendant’s defense of volenti succeeded because the plaintiff appreciated the risk and agreed to incur the same. Corporate personality defense Another key defense that the three defenders have is the rule of corporate personality. Suing Dangerfield, continental and Sandman Corporations under liability does not have legal grounds based on the doctrine of separate legal personality. The law of corporate personality holds that a properly incorporated company is a legal person and separate from its owners. Any legal liability perpetrated by the corporation is restricted to the corporation, and does not stretch to company shareholders and owners. The rule on corporate personality was founded in Salomon v A Salomon and co ltd (1897) case (McLaughlin 67). A company has a distinct and separate legal personality that is different from its members. As legal persons, companies can make contracts, sue and be sued, own property ad has a perpetual life that is beyond that of its members. As such, Dangerfield, continental and Sandman Corporations cannot be sued to enforce actions of a continental employee. By the fact that Sandman Corporation owns continental, Sandman Corporation cannot be sued for actions of its subsidiary as the two are different legal entities. Moreover, Dangerfield is a sister corporation to continental and cannot be sued for wrongdoings perpetrated by continental corporation due to the principle of separate legal personality. This defense is reinforced by the recent United Kingdom Supreme Court decision in VTB Capital plc v. Nutritek International Corp & Others (2012). In this case, the plaintiff wanted to sue directors and the defendant companies jointly on actions committed by the defendant. VTB Capital plc sued the owner of Nutritek International Corporation and its subsidiary but the application was rejected on the basis that the case was interlocutory and thus VTB plc could not make any case (McLaughlin 72). The defendant held that the corporate veil could not be lifted as it was an unprincipled annex. The judge acknowledged that the capacity to lift the veil was ambiguous as it runs up against the classic rule of separation of legal personalities laid down in the Salomon v. A. Salomon precedent. Therefore, the principle and the law on separate personality stipulated in Salomon case should serve as adequate defense. Assessment of Mitchell lawsuit Assessment of Hartman’s Negligence Mitchell suffered injuries as a result of sprinting from the car to aid Hartman who was crushed between two cars. In this lawsuit, Mitchell has a case as the act or omission of Hartman to observe safety while in the parking lot resulted in the grisly accident. Indeed, Hartman was negligence in her conduct of walking in front of the car as a reasonable person would not walk in front of a car knowing well that it is risky. In order for Mitchell to succeed in bringing an actionable claim of negligence, he has to meet the four components. One, Mitchell must prove that Hartman owed him a duty of care. In this case, Hartman as the customer owed a duty of care to Mitchell who is a parking lot attendant. Secondly, Mitchell must show that Hartman breached her duty of care by refusing to meet the required level of care. Hartman failed to observe on safety measures by walking in front of a moving car and this expressly shows a breach of duty as any reasonable person would not walk in front of a moving vehicle. As such, Hartman could have reasonably foreseen and prevented Mitchell’s injuries, although she decided not to do so. Thirdly, Mitchell has to show that he suffered harm, which can be financial or physical. In this context, Mitchell suffered severe physical damages. Finally, Mitchell needs to prove that Hartman’s breach of duty directly resulted in the said harm. It is as a result of Hartman breach of duty that the accident happened. Therefore, Mitchell’s claims against Hartman meet the four requisites for actionable action of negligence. Strict liability With regards to suing Sandman and Dangerfield companies on the basis of strict liability, Mitchell will need to prove several things to show that dangerous activities and conditions existed. The strict liability concept is grounded in the Rylands v Fletcher case (1868) in which the defendant can be liable in the absence of any negligent conduct on their part (Faure 27). In Rylands v Fletcher case, the defendant hired independent contractors to construct a water reservoir on the land, which was adjoined to the plaintiffs land. In the course of construction, the contractors encountered old shafts and passages filled with earth. The contractors did not block the passages, but unknown to them, the shafts adjoined the land of the defendant to the mines of the petitioner. When the water filled the reservoir, it infiltrated through the old shafts into the claimants mines and thus filling them. the judges held that “the individual for his own use brings on his land and assembles and keeps there anything possible to do harm if it escape, should maintain it at his risk, and is prima facie liable for all the harm which is the ordinary outcome of its escape”. The five core requirements that must be met as laid down in the strict liability doctrine are: Accumulation on the land of the defendant A thing likely to cause harm upon escape Escape Non-natural use of land the damage must not be too remote (Rush and  Ottley 162) Sandman and Dangerfield companies’ defense with regards to the action brought against them is that the above requirements have not been met. The reason is that the accident that happened was not caused by the escape of a thing that is likely to do mischief upon escape. Moreover, the accident did not result from Non-natural use of land. As such, there is no case with regard to strict liability on technical grounds. Furthermore, Sandman and Dangerfield are not directly responsible to employees of Continental Corporation. The reason is that the three are separate corporate personalities. With regard to Mitchell suit on continental for his wages, it is unclear whether he has been paid or not. In the case that he has not been paid, he can sue for salaries, medical insurance and other benefits that he is entitled to as an employee of Continental Corporation. However, he has to prove that the accident he suffered occurred in the course of employment. In this context, Mitchell suffered injuries in the course of employment (Australasian Legal Business, para 8). However, continental have a defense in that the injuries that Mitchell suffered were not a direct consequence of their negligence. The injuries that Mitchell suffered were caused by Hartman and not continental. Apparently, Mitchell is only entitled to wages up to the date of his injury. Vicarious liability claims In addition to the above lawsuits, the defendants may also face the claims of vicarious liability. In particular, Continental Corporation may be held vicariously legally responsible for the acts of Mitchell. Vicarious liability implies that a person who is free from personal blameworthiness will be liable for the acts of another person as a result of a particular relationship between them. Vicarious liability relates to the agency law and the law of contract where one person acts on behalf of another one. In this case, Mitchell is the agent who was acting on behalf of his employer; the principle. Vicarious liability claim in this particular case can be supported by Lister v. Hesley Hall Ltd case (2001) where an employer cannot avoid liability by demonstrating that an employee participated in an unauthorized wrongdoing (Lyndon 45). The most underlying component in establishing vicarious liability is the link with the “course of employment”. Works Cited “Introduction to English tort law. Web 25 August 2013 < http://www.biicl.org/files/763_introduction_to_english_tort_law.pdf> “Part 1: general principles of tort law. Web 25 August 2013 < ftp://ftp.pearsoned- ema.com/HPE_Samples/SampleChapters/9781405846943.pdf>. Anita Stuhmcke. Essential Tort Law. Singapore: Cavendish, 2001. Print. Australasian Legal Business. Employer liability for the negligent conduct of its employees. Thursday, 27 September 2012. Web 25 August 2013 < http://au.legalbusinessonline.com/online-practice-area-editor/employment-law/employer- liability-for-the-negligent-conduct-of-its-employees/109272>. Jon Rush and Michael Ottley. Business Law. Connecticut: Cengage Learning EMEA, 2006. Print. Michael Faure. Tort Law and Economics. London: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009. Print. Paul Lyndon Davies. Introduction to Company Law. oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print. Sue McLaughlin. Unlocking Company Law 2nd Edition. London: Routledge, 2013. Print. Read More