The Law of Torts for Protection the Interests of the Other People - Essay Example

Part Issue: The issue in this case is that Mark dug a certain potion of his yard to build a wall around his front garden. During the process, heavyrain disturbed him and he did not bother to cover the exposed area and a heap of rubble falls into the street. Dick is hit by some stones and is injured on his leg. On the other hand, Laura, Dick’s mother suffers a nervous breakdown after seeing Dick’s injuries. Tony who was riding his scooter down the street fell and broke his arm when hit by some rubble from the open pit. Jacque who was on the other side of the road assisted Tony after the accident and she was later infected with a rare form of blood poisoning which is caused by bacteria found in the soil. From the above scenario, it can be observed Dick, Laura, Tony and Jacque have rights to file a lawsuit against Mark who is liable for tort of negligence. Law: Tort law refers to civil wrongs to other people not arising from a contract and everyone has a duty care to their neighbours in relation to negligence (Capiro Industries vs. Dickman 1990)1. Thus, it generally refers to the duty of care owed by somebody to his or her neighbour. On the other hand, negligence is also described as a civil wrong arising from the act of negligence by doing something reasonable people would not do and the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owes a duty of care to him or her (Donoghue V. Stevenson 1932)2. Cooke3 suggests that in the event that it can be proved by the court that the plaintiff has suffered a civil injustice, then the plaintiff can claim for compensation or a remedy for the injuries suffered. The law of torts is specifically designed to protect the interests of the other people so that they do not fall victim to negligent acts of other people that may result in injuries. The law is also meant to ensure that justice prevails in the event that the defendant’s action has resulted in the injury of the plaintiff who will be entitled to get compensation for the injuries. Application: In order for the plaintiffs in the above mentioned scenarios to win their cases, they must prove to the courts that Mark owed them a duty care and that duty of care has been breached. In order to prove the existence of day care duty, some conditions should prevail as illustrated by the case of Capiro Industries vs. Dickman (1990). These conditions include foreseeability, proximity as well as reasonability. The occupiers also owe a duty care to ensure that all people who enter their premises are not injured even the trespassers (Hackshaw v. Shaw (1984)4. However, duty care does not always exist hence these factors need to be taken into account.Broadly speaking, some situations are foreseeable to any reasonable person before they embark on a particular action. From the above case scenario, it can be noted that Mark was not reasonable enough to leave the excavated area unprotected. As illustrated in the case of (Hackshaw v. Shaw (1984), occupiers have a duty care to all who pass through their places even trespassers. It can also be seen that it was foreseeable that a storm was building and Mark was not likely to complete his job on time. The element of proximity also exists where Mark excavated an area that was close to the road. As such, it is advisable that Dick, Laura, Tony and Jacque take legal action against Mark since they can prove to the court that Mark’s actions have been negligent and have led to their injuries. Reasonable people usually do not behave the way Mark acted. Conclusion: In this particular scenario, it can be noted that Mark’s actions have been responsible for the injury of Dick who is hit by some rubble from the pit he excavated and is injured. Dick’s mother, Laura experiences a nervous breakdown which has been caused by Dick’s injuries. These two cases are related and they are a result of Mark’s actions. These two deserve compensation from Mark since the court can hold that his actions have been negligent and have resulted in the injury of Dick as well as nervous breakdown of Laura. Tony is also a victim of Mark’s negligent behaviour since he broke his arm after rolling on the rubble that fell from the excavated area by Dick. Jacque who assists Tony is also a victim since she contacted a deadly blood disease which is caused by bacteria from contaminated soil that was excavated by Dick. The blame lays in Mark in all these cases. It can be seen that the direct injuries of Dick and Tony were caused by Mark’s negligent behaviour of leaving an excavated area unprotected. Unsuspecting people are bound to be injured since he did not even bother to put a warning sign of danger. The subsequent injuries of Laura in the form of nervous breakdown and Jack who contacted a disease from bacteria in the soil are also results of Mark’s negligent behaviour. To a large extent, it can be seen that Mark is responsible for negligent behaviour and he should compensate the four plaintiffs mentioned above since they have suffered as a result of his negligent behaviour. Under normal circumstances, reasonable people do not behave the way Mark did. Part 2 Issue: This issue involves Hillary who tells Bill who wants to invest in Midget Ltd that she has checked the accounts of that company and was convinced that it was a good investment. Hillary being a trainee auditor should have checked the account position of the company before advising Bill to make an investment. In this case, Hillary has in fact failed to read the accounts of Midget Ltd, which recorded losses in terms of income over a six month period and was only left with being declared insolvent as a result of liquidity crisis and this has resulted in Bill losing the money after investing it in the company. Law: The applicable laws in this case involve negligent misstatements. It is argued that an auditor owes a duty of care to the plaintiff if they can show that the auditors made the statement with the intention of inducing them to act in reliance on the statement (Esanda Finance Corporation v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1997)5. Therefore, the statement of the auditor should always be true such that they do not mislead unsuspecting people. The law says that the auditors will always be liable for their statements they make to potential investors who approach them seeking advice if they want to make an investment or to obtain other important information about a particular organization. Under normal circumstances, correct information should be made readily available to any person who may need it as long as it is business related. Application Like other cases of negligent, in order to establish that duty of care by the auditors exist, it is imperative to establish professional relationship or causal relationship and in this case, these two are friends, and the defendant should have known that the plaintiff would rely on the statement and was requested for a serious purpose like what happened in the case. Bill seriously relied on the information presented by Hillary which resulted in the subsequent loss of money after making the investment and lastly, there should be damage which shows the link between the cause of the loss and the defendant’s actions. Likewise, the loss of Bill has been a result of Hillary’s actions who failed to check with her boss and principal at Oditors & Co, Mr Ridges. In fact, she does not read the statement carefully and even advised that the company was good for investment. Conclusion Bill relied on the information that was supplied by Hillary which appeared to be false and this resulted in the subsequent loss of money. A critical analysis of this scenario shows that Hillary is liable since she was supposed to give expert advice by virtue of the fact that she is a trainee auditor. However, Oditors & Co do not have any liability in this case since they did not directly offer any statement to Bill. In fact, Hillary is the one who is liable since she offered a statement that was not correct to her friend in the first place. Read More