Tort Law Problem - Case Study Example

Tort Law Problem In the problem at bar, there are six parties which have sustained injuries of some kind as a result of the ensuing incident when PCBlack and PC White stopped at a petrol station for a refill en route to the magistrates’ court. Aboard the van were, aside from the two Police Constables, Basher and Simon, two prisoners scheduled to appear before the court that day. The stopping of the police van for a petrol refill, an unexpected stopover since police vans are supposed to refill at the police station, gave Basher an opportunity to instigate an escape plan dragging along Simon. In the course of such escape, the following six parties sustained and suffered injuries: PC Black who was attacked by Basher; PC White was punched by Basher and kicked in the head by Simon as a consequence of which he suffered a fractured skull; the person whose car was stolen; the newsagent whose earnings for the day was stolen by Basher; the customer who tried to intercede on behalf of the newsagent and was injured as result, and; a group of students, two of whom were injured in the ensuing car chase between Basher and the police. The question up for consideration in the case at bar is which of the aforesaid parties may apply for a personal injury claim. The owner of the stolen car A personal injury claim may lie against the Police Department for failure of the police, specifically PC White and PC Black, to exercise reasonable claim in handling the transportation of the prisoners from prison to the magistrate court. A most fatal and blatant error here is when PC White and PC Black stopped for a petrol refill at an outside station when the police regulations mandate them to do this in the police station itself. Another glaring error is the fact that obviously Basher and Simon were not properly handcuffed to their seats or in any manner that would have prevented their easy escape while in the process of transporting from the prison cell to the court or a kind of seating arrangement that would make it difficult for the prisoners to instantly grab a police officer and hold him hostage and expose the public at large to danger.. As a result of this negligence by the two policemen, Basher escaped and stole the newsagent’s earnings, injured another customer and property was stolen. In the case of Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. V. Home Office [1970] A.C. 1004, 1004-1005, a group of Borsal Boys, under the custody of police authorities were made to work on an island under the supervision of the police. At night however, seven of the boys escaped and stole the yacht of the plaintiff to get away and escape. The yacht was, in the course of the escape, damaged. The owner of the yacht sued the police authorities for negligence on the ground that they should have exercised effective control over the boys considering their records of frequent escapes and that the police authorities should have exercised the duty of care knowing that crafts like that of the plaintiffs are moored in the inland. In this case, the court held that that the police owe a reasonable duty of care to persons who might be injured as a consequence of the escape of the boys considering that an escapee will most likely steal or rob anything that night be of help to elude recapture by the police. The aforecited case falls squarely with that of the person whose car was stolen by Basher for the purpose of immediately fleeing and escaping recapture. The negligence of the police in securing the persons of the prisoners precluding an easy escape could give rise to an action by the car owner against the police authorities and a claim of personal injury due to stolen property.. The Newsagent and the Customer Similarly, the newsagent whose earnings for the day was stolen by Basher and the customer who came to the aid of the newsagent and as a result was injured might likewise file a case against the police authorities for recovery for the failure of the latter to exercise reasonable care in transporting the prisoners from the prison house to the court. Due to the police’s inability to properly secure the criminals which would have made escape difficult and its failure to follow police regulations in refilling petrol, injury was sustained by the said parties. In addition, the failure of the police to immediately recapture the escapee allowing him to drive more than 20 miles away should boost the newsagent and customer’s claim for personal injury. In the case of Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] A.C. 53, the issue was whether the police authorities were liable for the death of the plaintiff’s daughter who was killed by a notorious criminal who had victimized others before. The plaintiff held the police liable for failure to apprehend in time the murderer which would have prevented the killing of her daughter. Notwithstanding that the case was decided in favor of the police, it nevertheless reiterated the legal substance that was held in the earlier case of the Dorset Yacht. The relevant portion which stated: “It appears from the passage quoted from the speech of Lord Diplock in the Dorset Yacht case that in his view no liability would rest upon a prison authority, which carelessly allowed the escape of an habitual criminal, for damage which he subsequently caused, not in the course of attempting to make good his getaway to persons at special risk; but in further pursuance of his general criminal career to the person or property of the general public. The same rule must apply as regards failure to recapture the criminal before he had time to resume his career. In the case of an escaped criminal his identity and description are known” (1989). Group of students For the same reasons as above, the group of students has recourse against the authorities for their failure to recapture and retake Basher into custody and allowing a considerable period of time to pass, in this case a week. The case of Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] A.C. 53 should likewise be applicable in this case. In addition they have recourse against Basher himself who ran them over although it was not intentional. In the case of road accident mishaps, the UK authorities now allow recovery through the Pre-action Protocol Agreement. All the parties to this case may have initial recourse to the Pre-action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims especially with regard to the injured parties in the course of the car chase between the police and Basher since the Protocol is especially designed for traffic accidents. The implementation of the Protocol is aimed at facilitating the claims of the plaintiffs either by settling the claims at this stage before recourse to the courts or if resort to the court is inevitable, the proceedings at this stage will allow for a smoother and easier procedure when the claim is elevated to the court. PC White and PC Black PC White and PC Black are both victims of battery by Basher. In the case at bar, Basher initially attacked PC Black and then PC White. Battery is the willful and unlawful touching of another person. Although a criminal offense, battery like assault can also be included in the ambit of tort for which a personal injury claim can attach. In the case of Simon, he committed a grievous bodily harm because he caused a fractured skull on PC White. A GBH is a criminal case only (Archbold 19-206). Notwithstanding that Simon regretted his act it does not deter from the fact of the severity of the injury caused on PC White. In this case it is satisfactory if the prosecution proved that the defendant knew that some harm might be inflicted upon the victim. Read More