Law of Tort - Traffic Accident Law - Essay Example

?Law of Tort: Traffic Accident Law The Issues in the Case Jack Roberts and Laura Coombs lived together, but they never had new legal documents ascertaining their relationship. Therefore, following the death of Laura, it would be difficult to compensate Roberts following his psychiatric condition prompted by that death. However, should their mutual relationship governed by love be considered as the means for Roberts to be compensated by kelvin? Notably, the love shared between them could have led to Roberts’ health problems following the accident and death of Laura Coombs. Kevin Browning was drunk or drinking while driving and he should take all the liabilities that followed the accident. Following the police investigation, Kelvin knocked Laura Coombs on the pavement as opposed to on the road. However, he claims that he will not take full responsibilities of the ill health of Robert, whose health deteriorated because of witnessing accident since Robert did not actually see the accident happen. Moreover, according to Norris J. Roberts will not be compensated since he did not have any relationship with Laura. Additionally, Kelvin is appealing the cause not to take any liability of Laura’s mother’s ill health following the death of her daughter facilitated by kelvin’s reckless driving. According to Kelvin, Clare was not at the scene of accident; thus, she is not a witness to the accident. Moreover, she did not see the major body parts of Laura, so she cannot give accounts of what the accident did to her daughter. It is also worth stating that there is not point she appeared shocked on learning that her daughter got involved in an accident and subsequent death. Clare suffered health problems following the death of her daughter and demands that Kelvin should take of her psychiatric medical bills among other attached responsibilities a crewed by the same. Law: The laws to be regarded in this case are those that are related to the road accident and to what extent should be the accused (Kelvin) should be responsible to the persons affected following the accident. Application: In this case, Kelvin is noted to have problems or have refused to take care of duty owing to the psychiatric harm he caused to both Jack and Clare. Additionally, Norris J. also, for the first time, dismissed Jack’s claims that the accident and subsequent death of Laura had led to his health problem. According to Norris, Jack is not in any way a primary victim of circumstances. Moreover, he lacked all grounds that Jack could be treated as a secondary victim. Law: However, according to the Road Traffic Accident, any witness who suffers any recognizable psychiatric disorder including post stress disorder due to the accident can file claims for damages for persons that have caused the accident. Application: In this case, it is a fact that Jack has suffered psychiatric disorder following the death of Laura from the accident caused by Kelvin1. Therefore, it would be prudent if Kelvin pay all the damages caused on Jack following the accident and death of the Laura. If such is considered, the Jack will be treated a road traffic accident witness. Notably, had it not for the death, it can never be ascertained beyond any reasonable doubt that Jack could have suffered such health problems. When Jack went out and saw what happened to Laura, he might have suffered from nervous shock. Jack’s case can be related to the Hambrook v Stoke2 and or Bros Dulieu v White3 cases where in both cases, the victims were awarded the damages caused to them by accidents they witnessed. Just like it may be in any other case that nature of Jack’s injury was reasonably foreseeable and was never in any case caused by his own negligence. He had to have been in the scene of accident by the virtue that Laura was her partner, she came to his place, and by his own doorsteps, the accident happened. Therefore, he had to be there and follow her to the hospital4. Therefore, if Norris never wants to compel Kelvin to pay all health damages he has went through following the accident, he must consider him as a secondary victim to this accident. Law: It should be noted that the law states that the shock affecting these victims must originate hearing or sight events or from the immediate effects or aftermath of the accident. Application: Applying this part to the case above, both Clare and Roberts should be compensated since they all suffered from post trauma effects following the accident5. From the cases above, it should be noted that the victims who filled the case were treated as involuntary participants; therefore, there is no need of distancing Robert from the case and his relationship to the case should be governed by proximity of relationship he had with Laura. Law: In the case of Clare, Laura’s mother, the law provides for her compensation as a parent6. Application: The nervous shock is considered to be injury or psychiatric illness caused by negligence or intentional actions or omission of another must be compensated by persons responsible for the same. Laws that govern such actions are usually applied in cases that are related to psychiatric disorders initiated by witnessing an accident. If this part of the law is applied in its plain meaning; therefore, it means that Clare is supposed not to be compensated since she did not witness the accident7. Hence, it may be noted that this law is sometimes misleading and inaccurate. Conclusion Nonetheless, the nervous law requires full compensation to the victims particularly if the accident was due to negligence. From the police investigation report, it was found out that Kelvin was driving while drinking and due to his poor judgment, caused by drinking, he went driving on the pavement and hit Laura on the pavement, not on the road8. Driving while drinking or drunk driving is an immense negligence on the road and from such unethical and illegal behavior, Kelvin caused the accident. Were he not drunk or been drinking while he was behind the wheels, he could have not caused the accident that lead to health problems of Clare and Roberts. Therefore, this law should include as was defined earlier, hearing, and subsequent effects of such information to the affected persons. In addition, the law should not only concentrate on the immediate aftermath but the long-term effects caused by such gross misbehaviors and illegal acts. Moreover, the law must consider the relationship between the accident victim and witness. Psychiatric disorders are usually emotional disorders and they are mutually generated. In this case, therefore, Clare could have been away and in any way, she did not visit or actually saw the scene of the accident. Regardless of such fact, she is the mother of the accident9 victim and the love or emotional attachment she have to her daughter is the main reason that led her to her psychiatric health problems. It should be noted that Norris judgment was in favor of Clare on the ground of the close relationship between her and the victim10. This point of consideration is true and it is true that were it not for the relationship that Clare and Laura have, Clare could have not suffered psychiatric health problems as in the present case. On the same ground, it is worth stating that Roberts should be accorded the same judgment since they were once in love and it cannot be proven whether they still loved each other and their actions were only based on bride; hence, they none of them wanted to back down for their love. Additionally, no one can ascertain whether the love that Laura had for Roberts that made her to walk in protest through the door since she could not believe what Roberts was telling her11. Nonetheless, the love that these two people shared is now manifested on the post-accident and death effects on Roberts. Therefore, Roberts should be equally compensated as the mother due to the close relationship that two had. Applying the case and relationship and the cause of the accident, Kelvin should never any right to appeal to any judgment on his responsibility of the accident. It is worth stressing that Kelvin must pay all due medical costs among other care fees on Clare. On the other hand, Roberts should file an appeal over Norris judgment and she should be paid as Clare. Norris should treat Roberts as a secondary accident witness a fact that is proven since Roberts did not actually witnessed as Kelvin hit Laura. Apparently, it is clear that the law does not in favor Roberts any way, but he can be the person who has been affected highly in this case. There is no need of disregarding his relationship with Laura and his case should be presented and discussed with a lot of open mindedness. However, Roberts’ health problem may not only be associated to the accident and death of Laura, but it might also been generated from the guilt that he might have, in some degree, contributed to the accident and subsequent death of Laura. Moreover, his health might have also been facilitated by the past situation or relationship with Laura. Nonetheless, the court must consider his condition as an effect of the accident and subsequent death of Laura; thus, Kelvin should compensate him accordingly. Bibliography Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Cane, P. (1997). The anatomy of tort law. Oxford: Hart Publ. Cane, P., & Atiyah, P. S. (2013). Atiyah's accidents, compensation and the law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cane, P., & Atiyah, P. S. (2013). Atiyah's accidents, compensation and the law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lunney, M., & Oliphant, K. (2008). Tort law: Text and materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Markesinis, B. S. (2005). Compensation for personal injury in English, German and Italian law: A comparative outline. Cambridge [u.a.: Cambridge Univ. Press. Marsh, S. B., & Soulsby, J. (2002). Business law. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes. Steele, J. (2007). Tort law: Text, cases, and materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ward, P. (2010). Tort law in Ireland. Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International. Winiger, B. (2011). Essential cases on damage. Berlin: De Gruyter. Bottom of Form Read More