Analysis of Common Law Cases - Case Study Example

Case Rate Plants Ltd general tortuous liability and contractual liability A general tortuous liability arises in relation to the negligent performance of the duty of care between individuals who are not contractually bound to each other. According to the court in the case of Caparo Industries plc v Dickman1, the duty of care exist when the following elements are present (a) the harm done can be reasonably foreseen as result of the defendant’s conduct, (b) there is proximity between the act of the defendant and the harm suffered by the claimant, and (c) the act of imputing liability is "fair, just and reasonable." While the general tortuous liability does not need the existence of a contract, contractual liability can also occur when two or more parties promise to deliver a thing certain or perform or to refrain from performing certain acts in exchange for certain consideration. Where general tortuous liability may arise out of negligence, contractual liability cannot arise out of negligence but rather on the assumption that the parties breached the provisions of the contract or agreement. Since the claimants in this case do not have any contractual relationship with Rare Plants Ltd, the liability of the company towards the claimants may only arise out of tort. 2. liability as occupier of the premises As occupier of the premises, Rare Plants Ltd has the duty of care towards its visitors. According to neighborhood doctrine espoused by Lord Atkin in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson2, a person or an entity may be held liable for the damages he or she caused to his or her neighbor. Based on the decision of the court in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson3, a person becomes your neighbor when he or she is close enough to be directly by your action. In the case of Rare Plants Ltd, its neighbors are the people who come to its store, thus, Rare Plants Ltd can be held liable for any harm suffered by the visitors through the negligence of the company. 3. liability under health and safety regulations Provided that Rare Plants Ltd followed faithfully the health and safety regulations of the state, it cannot be held liable for violations of these regulations. Note that the facts of this case clearly stated that the company have engaged workers to make the premises of the company safe to visitors. Clearly, the company is not negligent in its duty of protecting its visitors from possible harm. The fact that the elderly visitor slipped on the pathway is an accident and provided that the company exercised its duty of care against such incidents, it cannot be held liable for tort of negligence especially if the company can prove that the victim did not exercise due diligence when walking on the pathway. The contributory negligence of the victim here would negate the liability of Rare Plants Ltd for tort. On the other hand, in the case of the mother who lost her child while in the premises of the company, she cannot hold the company liable for negligence. Note that the facts of the case clearly stated that the company posted signs and warnings all over the place to prevent people from straying into dangerous areas. Moreover, the mother was also negligent in this case. If she had watched over her kid, the kid would not have been lost inside the premises of the company. 4. contributory negligence, vicarious liability and the chain of causation a. Contributory negligence Under English law, contributory negligence occurs when the behavior of the claimant contributes to his or her injury (Horsey, K & Rackley, E., 2009). Since the claimant was negligent in protecting himself against harm, he cannot claim hold the other party liable for tort. In the case of Rare Plants Ltd, the mother who was negligent in caring for her kid cannot hold the company liable for damages. However, if the mother’s negligence occurred after Rare Plants Ltd had been negligent in its duty to protect it visitors, the mother can still hold the company liable for damages. Note that in the case of Davies v. Mann4, the court said that if the defendant had been negligent before the contributory negligence of the claimant occurred, the defendant can still be held liable for damages. b. vicarious liability Under English law, vicarious liability is a form of secondary liability which arises on the in relation to the doctrine of respondeat superior (Horsey, K & Rackley, E., 2009). Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, since the superior has the duty to control the acts of his or her subordinates, as long as the subordinates are acting within their mandate, the supervisor can be held liable for the acts of the persons who are under his or her supervision (Horsey, K & Rackley, E., 2009). When it comes to companies, where the agents of the company acted within the powers conferred to them, they can legally bind the company and thus the company becomes vicariously liable for the tortuous acts of the agents (see Davies v. Mann5). In the case of Rare Plants Ltd, if the workers employed by the company in maintaining the pathway were negligent in their duties, the company can be held liable for the damages resulting from the negligence of the workers. c. chain of causation Under English law, the chain of causation is defined by the direct link between the negligent act of the defendant and the loss or damages suffered by the plaintiff (Horsey, K & Rackley,E. 2009). For the purpose of establishing liabilities between the parties, there must a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff and that the defendant must commit a breach of the duty of care (Lunny M., Oliphant K., 2008). Since the defendant committed a breach of the duty of care, he or she can be held liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff. Case 2: ABC Accountants Ltd 1. For the claim of negligence to prosper in court, the following elements must be present (a) a duty of case exist, (b) the defendant committed a breach of duty of care (Lunny M., Oliphant K., 2008). In the case of Lucy, although she is not my client, the fact that I gave her an advice based on my capacity as an accountant and that she relied on the information that I gave her in investing her money made me liable for breach of the duty of care. Note that in the case of Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd6, whenever a person takes on a voluntary responsibility towards another, a duty of care arises. In the case of Lucy, the fact that she relied on my negligent statements in investing her money made me liable for her loses. 2. The standard of care required of me as an accountant is to perform my work in accordance with my expertise and skills. According to the court in the case of Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co7, professionals who bring with them expertise and skills in the performance of their duties have the duty to perform their duties based on their expertise and skills. Based on the decision of the court in the case of Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd8 , I owe a duty of care not only to my employers but also to the people who will rely on my expertise in making important decisions. Note that the court specifically stated in the case of Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd9 that whenever a professional give information to another person based on his or her expertise, he or she is deemed to have assumed an involuntary obligation to exercise a duty of care in giving such opinion. 3. The fact that Lucy came to me for my expert opinion and that I gave her advice even without her engaging my services as an accountant gave rise to a special relationship between the two of us. According to the court in the case of Ross v. Caunters10 and in the case of Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd11, where a person voluntarily assumes responsibility over the other, a special relationship arises between the parties. 4. In the applying the case of Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co12 and the case of Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd13 to our case, we focus on the assumption of responsibility of the accountant and the damages that resulted from the negligent statement of the accountant. Following the decision of the court in the case of Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co14, the accountant would not be liable for damages since there was no contractual relationship between him and Lucy. Note that in the case of Candler, the court said that the duty of care is only owned towards the clients of the accountants and not towards third persons who did not hire the services of the accountant. However, in applying the decision of the court in the case of Hedley, the accountant will now be liable for breach of the duty of care even if the person to whom he gave his professional opinion is not his client. According to the Court in the case of Hedley, where the professional gave his expert opinion and the person to whom he gave his expert opinion relied on it in making important decisions, the professional is said to have assumed voluntary responsibility towards that person. In the event where that person suffers damages resulting from his reliance on the negligent statement of the professional, the professional can be held liable for damages. 5. According to the court in the case of Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd15, the place where the opinion of the expert was given to the other person does not matter. What matters is that the person whom the expert opinion was given to rely on such statement in making decisions. In the case of Lucy, the fact that she sought the opinion of the accountant during a break does not absolve the accountant of any liability towards her. 6. According to (Horsey, K & Rackley, E., 2009), vicarious liability arises when the company assumes responsibilities over the actions of its agents. The principle of vicarious liability does not apply to the case of Lucy. Note that the accountant was hired by the company to work on its books and such duties do not include the giving of professional opinions to other people other than the management of the company. According to the court in the case of Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co.16, the company can only be held liable for the actions of its agents when the agents are performing an act in behalf of the company and that the performance of such act is within the ambit of the powers given to the agent by the company. In the same vein, the court also said in the case of Armagas Limited v Mundogas S.A.17 that the company can only be held vicariously liable for the acts of its employees if such employee caused damage to another while performing his or her duties for the company. In the case of Lucy and the accountant, the conditions set in Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co.18 and Armagas Limited v Mundogas S.A.19 were not met. The accountant was not an agent of the company and certainly, he was not an employee who was performing his duties towards the company. Moreover, the fact that Lucy used the expert opinion of the accountant for her own consumption absolved the company of any vicarious liability. We have to understand that the relationship between Lucy and the accountant did not involve the company thus the company could not be held vicarious liable for the losses suffered by Lucy. Case 3: Drivers A & B 1. The driving offence in this case should be considered as serious. The fact that the victim suffered severe injuries that resulted to hospitalization for three months only goes to show how serious the damage is. Since the offence in this case is serious, the negligent driver is liable for tort of damages and the employer of the driver at fault can be held vicariously liable for the offence committed by the driver. According to the court in the case of Rose v Plenty20, the liability of the employer arises when the employee injures another while performing his duties correctly and while performing his duties incorrectly provided that his incorrect actions were done for the benefit of the company. Another case that illustrates the nature of the vicarious liability of the employer is the case of Limpus v London General Omnibus Company21. In this case, the driver of the bus blocked the rival bus and caused an accident. The company specifically prohibited its drivers from doing such kind of actions but the court still held the company liable for the acts of its employee. In the our case, even if the driver of the delivery truck was at fault, the fact that he was on duty at the time that accident occurred made the company vicariously liable for the injuries of A. The key factor that can make the company vicariously liable in this case is that the employee was on duty and was performing his job when the accident happened. 2. When filing a civil action for damages against the driver B, the plaintiff needs to prove that the driver was negligent in exercising its duty of care while navigating the road. According to the court in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson22, the elements of negligence involve the (a) duty of care, (b) breach of the duty of care, and (c) the breach of the duty of care is the proximate or the remote cause of the injury suffered by the victim. In the case at bar, for driver A to be able to recover damages for his sufferings, he need to prove to the court that the three elements mentioned above are present in this case. On the other hand, to prove the existence of a vicarious liability of the employer, driver A need to prove to the court that driver B is an employee of the company and at that time the accident happened driver B was on duty. 3. The neighborhood theory of Lord Atkin applies to this case. Note that according to the neighborhood theory, a person owes a duty of care towards the other person who will be most affected by his action. In the case at bar, driver A was in the same road as driver B thus, he was one of the people who were at risk of being affected by the negligence of driver B. As it is, driver A becomes the neighbor of driver B so driver B has the duty of care towards driver A. 4. If the wife of driver A had been innocently informed about the accident and she suffered nervous shock, she can recover damages from driver A. According to the court in the case of McLoughlin v OBrian23 the third person who is the wife or the children of the victim need not be present at the scene of the incident to suffer nervous shock. It is enough that the relationship between the victim and the person be based on love and affected and that the knowledge of the condition of the victim would cause psychiatric harm on the third person. 5. Unless the misdiagnosis of the condition of the victim came within the chain of causation it should be treated as another case of tort. Note that the chain of causation can be broken when another event happens to break the chain of event (Horsey, K & Rackley, E., 2009). In this case, the chain of even could be broken by the negligent actions of the attending physician. Since the attending physician’s negligence caused injuries to driver B, the physician may be held liable for medical malpractice and may be asked by the court to pay the victim corresponding compensation for damages. Bibliography Cases 1. Horsey, K & Rackley, E. (2009) Tort Law Oxford University Press, Oxford 1st ed 2. Lunny M., Oliphant K. (2008) Tort Law: Text and materials, Oxford University Press Table of Cases 1. Armagas Limited v Mundogas S.A. [1986] 1 AC 717 2. Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co [1951] 2 KB 164 3. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 4. Davies v. Mann, 10 M&W 546, 152 Eng. Rep. 588 (1842) 5. Davies v. Mann, 10 M&W 546, 152 Eng. Rep. 588 (1842) 6. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 7. Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 8. Limpus v London General Omnibus Company (158 ER 993) 9. Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co. [1912] AC 716 10. McLoughlin v OBrian [1982] 2 All ER 298 11. Rose v Plenty [1976] 1 WLR 141 12. Ross v. Caunters [1970] 3 AER 580 Read More