Business Law: Principles for Todays Commercial Environment - Essay Example

Andrew tried to apply emergency brakes but the brakes were defective, the mechanism snapped, and the car ran into Peter, causing him serious injury. Days earlier, Ander took his car to Bob’s Repair Shop for lubrication, and even though Bob noted a problem with a pin in the brake system, he did not inform Andrew of the same.

The issue for determination is the possible existence of Peter’s legal rights, under negligence, against Andrew and Bob and possible defenses for the two parties.

Negligence involves a breach of care that a party owes to others, the occurrence of which leads to legal damage. The plaintiff needs to prove the existence of a duty of care, which might also be evident per se or might be considered under tradition, breach of the duty of care, and occurrence of the damage. There must also be proof of causation that is based on the defendant’s ability to foresee the ultimate danger. Identifying the elements establishes the plaintiff’s legal right in a negligence case. The doctrine of foreseeability also identifies proximate cause to the effect that a defendant may not be the immediate cause of the event into harm but still bears responsibility. The case of Tyson Foods v Cuzman explains this (Twomey and Jennings 178). Failure to warn of dangers in usage or of dangers of misuse also induces liability, as long as the danger is not trivial (Beatty and Samuelson 488).

In this case, Andrew owed a duty of care to other road uses but he breached the duty because of overspeeding at a location with pedestrians. In addition, Andrew had coffee as he was driving and allowing spilled coffee to divert his attention, meaning that he disregarded the interest of other road users, which identifies a breach of the duty of care into Peter’s injury. The doctrine of proximate causes and responsibility due to failure to warn also induces Bob’s breach of duty of care to people who could be affected by Andrew’s car.

Andrew and Bob had a duty of care to road users that they breached and that led to Peter’s injury. Consequently, Peter has a legal right to compensation due to negligent tort, against both parties. The compensation may relate to pain and impairment (Twomey and Jennings 180).

Contributory negligence and comparative negligence are however possible defenses for Andrew and Bob. The doctrines limit defendants’ liability in negligence, totally or partially based on the plaintiff’s role in the occurrence of a risk. Andrew and Bob may argue that Peter’s failure to observe Andrew’s oncoming car identifies his contribution to the accident. This may however limit just a proportion of liability because the defendants’ contributions are significant (Twomey and Jennings 181, 182).