The Tort of Negligence - Case Study Example

Tort Law In respect to Maggie’s situation, it is possible that the tort of negligence can be applied against Shoddy Contractors. The company can be held vicariously liable for the negligent actions of its employees in drilling through the cables in Maggie’s apartment. There may also be a cause of action in tort that could exist against Globalnet Computers who have provided her with defective goods. The duty of care that exists in negligence is laid out in Caparo Industries v Dickman1where it was held that damage arising out an action should be (a) foreseeable (b) there must be a relationship of sufficient proximity between the parties and (c) it must be fair and reasonable to impose a duty of care. The element of forseeability means that a reasonable person in the circumstances would have been able to anticipate that such damages could arise. In the case of Shoddy Contractors, they are professionals who are in the business of setting up light fixtures, therefore they would be expected to be reasonable conversant with the necessary procedures for doing so and dangers that could arise out of negligence. Therefore the element of foreseeability may be established in this case, since damages were likely to occur through negligent drilling of electrical wires, therefore workers should have been more careful. Secondly, the relationship of the parties may also be established in this case. While a duty of care may not arise or be owed to a particular claimant if that claimant was unforseeable2 in this case, Shoddy Contractors in installing street lights outside Maggie’s building owed a duty of care and had a relationship with all the clients in the building to whom it was providing a service. In some cases, a duty of care has not been imposed when it could have led to unduly defensive practices adopted by defendants to the extent of interfering with their performance of a public duty, for example in the case of Hill v CC of West Yorkshire.3 While in this case also, a public duty is being performed by Shoddy Contractors, nevertheless they would be expected to take minimum precautions in drilling through electrical wires and the event that occurred may be held violative of the duty of care. The actions of Shoddy Contractors in drilling through an electrical wire would qualify as a negligent act that occurred through the failure to take reasonable precautions. For example, in the case of Barrett v Ministry of Defence4 it was held that when a person undertakes to perform a task, he also assumed the duty to carry it out carefully. Therefore Shoddy Contractors may be held to be liable for negligent performance of a risky duty and consequent damages that have resulted. Another aspect that arises in this case is the fact that Shoddy Contractors were supposed to be professionals providing a skilled service, i.e, electrical work and a higher standard of duty of care exists for professionals, according to the criteria laid out in the case of Hedley Bryne v Heller5 where the higher standard exists because those who avail of the professional’s service rely on his expertise and skill in providing the appropriate solution; hence it is incumbent on the professional to exercise a higher degree of care. Therefore, Shoddy Contractors will most likely be held guilty of negligence in failing to provide necessary standard of duty of care to Maggie in providing the electrical service. In terms of losses that Maggie may be able to recover, it may be noted that generally recoveries are not possible where pure economic loss alone has occurred. For example, in the cases of Cattle v Stockton Waterworks6and Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute7 the Plaintiffs suffered economic losses that hindered their ability to carry on their business, but these were not recoverable in tort. However, in the case of Spartan Steel and Alloys v Martin8these economic losses occurred as a consequence of physical damage and were therefore recoverable. Applying this in Maggie’s case, it may be noted that the losses she has sustained as a direct consequence of the electrical power surge are electrical burns and the melting of the circuit boards within her computer. In the case of Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital9 recoveries were allowed because the claimant was able to prove that the damages would not have occurred but for the tortuous actions of the defendant, and this is also the case with Maggie. The power surge has been the direct cause of economic losses to her in conjunction with personal injury. She has suffered a loss of 1000 pounds to replace the circuit boards and 3000 pounds in fees as a direct consequence of her injuries which prevented her work. Since these have resulted directly due to the electrical surge, it is possible that Maggie may be able to recover this amount from Shoddy Computers. The issue of vicarious liability will apply in the case of Shoddy Computers. Employers have been held to be vicariously liable for the negligent acts of their employees if a relationship can be established between the employment and the actions of the tortfeaser, as was the case in Mattis v Pollock10 and Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd.11 In both these cases, the tortuous actions of the employees were executed during the course of their employment and by utilizing the tools provided to them by their employer. In the case of Shoddy Contractors, the tortfeasers, i.e, the electricians who actually drilled the wire negligently were employed by Shoddy and were using tools and resources that were provided to them by their employers; therefore liability of the employer – Shoddy Contractors – to compensate Maggie for the damages she has suffered in the amount of 4000 pounds may be allowed by the Courts. It is also likely that any expenses Maggie has incurred on medical bills to treat her injuries may also be included within the range of compensation. The Courts may also allow damages for the losses Maggie has sustained through losing out on lucrative contracts, however this does not appear to be a strong possibility in this case because (a) the nature of the injuries sustained were not serious enough to call for exhaustive damages and (b) the possibility of such gains would have to be proved by Maggie. Unlike the 3000 pounds which were in fact fees that were due to Maggie and can therefore be proved, future earnings could be a contentious issue since it is difficult to establish conclusively. Moreover, in view of the fact that no one else in Maggie’s building suffered injuries, the Courts may hold that the nature of the offence by Shoddy’ Computers does not constitute a magnitude serious enough to also inflict heavy punitive damages. On the question of recovery of damages to the hard drive, it may be more difficult to establish a cause of action against Shoddy Computers. While it may be clearly established that the circuit boards melted as a result of the power surge, an inherently defective hard drive cannot be attributed to be Shoddy’s fault. The facts of the case appear to support the position that responsibility for the defective hard disk drive may need to be attributed to Globalnet Computers, especially since the Company ceased trading in 2003, which further implies that it may have faced some problems. Establishing any cause of action against Global Net Computers may run into difficulties because the nature of the losses that are to be recovered are purely economic and also because a considerable amount of time has elapsed since the original purchase, as a result of which warranties may also have expired. In earlier cases where the Courts were faced with claimants who were owners of property but discovered after acquiring the property that it had a defect and money had to be spent in repairing or replacing it, conflicting verdicts have been delivered. For example, in the case of Dutton v Bognor Regis UDC12 the property in question that was acquired was a dangerously defective building and the Courts allowed the claimant to recover economic losses, especially since the defect could be classified as dangerous. In the case of Anns v Merton LBC13 the Courts allowed the claimed to claim economic losses from damaged goods although such damages could not be categorized as dangerous. However, in the case of Murphy v Brentwood DC14 the House of Lords held that since damages incurred by the claimant due to purchase of defective goods was largely economic, it was not recoverable in tort. However, when a general duty of care can be established in result of pure economic losses resulting from a negligent act, it may be recoverable if the claimant relied on the defendant’s skill and experience, as was the case in Junior Books v Veitchi.15 Applying this in the case of Maggie, it must be noted that the defective hard drive has resulted in losses of 7000 pounds, especially since she had to employ a specialist contractor because Global net Computers was no longer trading and active. It must also be noted that Maggie’s original decision to purchase the product from Globalnet was based upon exhaustive consultants with Fastchips which marketed its computers and software through Globalnet. Fastchips would qualify as an expert upon whose advice Maggie relied in making her decision, however establishing the negligence of Globalnet would be a more difficult matter. Furthermore, establishing the chain link of causation will be somewhat more complicated in Maggie’s case because in the intervening period since she bought the computer and software, another crisis has occurred, i.e, the melting of the circuit boards which could also be the causative factor that has corrupted the hard drive. The difficulty that exists in Maggie’s case is that the chain of causation cannot be clearly established for the corrupted hard drive – either to Shoddy Contractors or Globalnet Computers. Shoddy can claim the drive was defective die to the manufacturer while Globalnet can claim the drive was defective due to the intervening events that occurred, especially because Maggie used her computer successfully till September 2003. In establishing a tortuous action, it is necessary for a claimant to prove that the defendant’s breach of duty was the direct cause of the harm16. Establishing the direct link of causation may be difficult in the case of Globalnet. While the Courts have held that in cases where there are two successive causes of harm, the first event may be held to be the actual cause of harm, as was the case in Performance Cars v Abraham17nevertheless a second event that interferes with the causation of harm will be deemed to reduce the effect of the tort, as was the case in Carslogie Steamship Co v Royal Norweigan Government.18 Hence, even if Maggie is able to bring successfully bring a tortuous action against Globalnet Computers for supply of defective goods, she may not be able to recover the entire sum of 7000 pounds. Maggie could also choose to bring action against Shoddy Computers in regard to the defective hard drive as well, because it is not necessary to prove that the defendant’s action was the main cause of the harm but rather that it contributed materially to the damage that occurred, as was the case in Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw.19 Therefore Maggie can claim that the melting of the circuit boards contributed materially to the corruption of the hard drive; however here again, recovery of losses may be limited because the Courts have generally not been favorable towards recoveries of purely economic losses. Bibliography * Anns v Merton LBC (1997) 2 All ER 492 * Barrett v Ministry of Defence (1995) 3 All ER 87 * Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital (1968) 1 All ER 1068 * Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw (1956) 1 All ER 615 * Bourhill v Young (1942) 2 All ER 396 * Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990) 1 All ER 586 * Carslogie Steamship Company v Royal Norwegian Government (1952) 1 All ER 20 * Dutton v Bognor Regis UDC (1972) 1 QB 373 * Hedley Byrne v Heller (1963) 2 All ER 575 * Hill v CC of West Yorkshire (1988) 2 All ER 238 * Junior Books v Veitchi (1982) 3 All ER 201 * Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd (2002) 1 AC 215 * Mattis v Pollock (2003) EWCA Civ 887 * Murphy v Brentwood DC (1990) 2 All ER 908 * Performance Cars v Abraham (1961) 3 All ER 413 * Pickford v Imperial Chemical Industries (1998) 3 All ER 462 * Stockton v Cattle Waterworks (1875) LR 10 QB 453 * Spartan Steel and Alloys v Martin (1972) 3 All ER 557 * Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease research Institute (1996) 1 QB 569 Read More