Tort Law Master - Case Study Example

Mr. Andrews could be implicated with "legal liability for a failure to act."3 As with regards to Mr. Andrews, he first had an obligation to Mr. Brown that he would treat him fairly as he would any of his other investors. This duty of care is evidenced in the following case. "In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, Lord Atkin recognized that the existing examples of duties to take care could be seen as aspects of a single tort[whereas i]n Anns v Merton [1978] AC 728, Lord Wilberforce stated [the single, universal test for the duty of care in negligence arose] on the basis of 'neighbourhood,' unless there was some distinct reason to deny a duty."6 Mr. Andrews next breached the obligation to be fair to Mr.

Brown by acting in a manner inconsistent with the way a responsible managing director of a company normally would. Mr. Andrews's third and fourth causes of action were that his conduct was the cause of harm, and did harm Mr. Brown. Mr. Andrews was clearly at fault, according to the Law Reform Act of 1945 which states that "[Fault is . . .] negligence, breach of statutory duty or other act or omission which gives rise to a liability in tort."7 Consequentially, as a result of this negligence, Mr. . Mr.

Andrews next breached the obligation to be fair to Mr. Brown by acting in a manner inconsistent with the way a responsible managing director of a company normally would. Mr. Andrews's third and fourth causes of action were that his conduct was the cause of harm, and did harm Mr. Brown. Mr. Andrews was clearly at fault, according to the Law Reform Act of 1945 which states that "[Fault is . . .] negligence, breach of statutory duty or other act or omission which gives rise to a liability in tort.

"7 Consequentially, as a result of this negligence, Mr. Brown's surviving relatives could sue for "pain and suffering," which would include the "mental and emotional trauma which are recoverable as elements of damage in torts."8 Damages would be determined by the judge. With regards to the second case, there are several tort issues that come up. "Tortsinclude all wrongs of commission to rights in tangible matter, wrongs to rights in the body, life, liberty and security, and wrongs to rights in tangible property, its possession and exclusive control."9 Mr. Orange, if he survives the automobile accident, is liable not only in situation of having robbed the bank, but additionally would face charges due to having injured Mr.

White in the process of robbing the bank. Not only this, but Mr. Brown could sue Mr. Orange for recklessness and subsequent damages sustained from the car accident that ensued following the robbery. Thus, Mr. Orange is in a great deal of trouble. Not only does he incur liability for robbing a bank, but in the process of committing that crime, he injured two people. As such, if he does survive, Mr. Orange