Claim in Tort That Sally May Have against Harry Jones - Essay Example

Tort Introduction The prime intention of this is to critically examine the basic concept of tort along with the consequences leading to impose majorhurdles for the plaintiffs. In order to assess the significance of tort law, the study incorporates a wide view of the aspects associated with the negligent advices and misguiding information that breach the principles of ‘duty of care.’ In this context, the study provides appropriate justice whether the plaintiff may have rights to claim against the wrongdoings of the defendants in the form of analysing various law cases. In order to assess the relevance of the decisions, the study also considers real cases and compares the claims that can be made by the plaintiffs. Brief Overview of the Case With reference to the case provided, it can be apparently observed that Sally and her husband Tom administer their own business of producing and selling ice cream to local restaurants and shops. Tom possesses a small herd of dairy cows that supply milk, which is required to make ice creams daily and sell across different local shops and restaurants. According to the case study, the dairy milk-processing firm of Sally and Tom had faced an accident, which took place due to the negligence made by Harry Jones (Jones), a contractor appointed by Tom’s next-door neighbourhood. According to a critical view of the event, the accident occurred due to resurfacing process of driveway to premises. The process further witnessed that Jones had carelessly and cut through the electricity supply cables that served both the premises. The accident took place with a workmen named Rashid, who was sent by Jones to examine the damage and held a major electric shock that further lead towards severely impacting his health conditions. Nevertheless, the occurrence of the accident imposed negative impact on the dairy business of Sally and Tom in terms of losing sales of ice creams and attaining maximum profitability. Part A (i) Any Claim in Tort That Sally May Have Against Harry Jones There are certain conditions of the Tort Law, based on which one party advices or conveys any information to the other party, further accompanying with circumstances due to the negligent advice given by any party leading to impose major concern for the other party(s). However, if the information or the advice of the first party is negligently misstated, owing to which the second party becomes unfavourably affected, the first party is deemed to be liable for compensating any loss or damage caused (Department of Industry, n.d.). In common terms, negligent misstatement is considered among the approach where people are deemed to conduct breach towards the legal obligations of duty of care, which again falls under the tort law. It refers to a particular legal obligation where people are imposed with certain standards that they must follow with regard to ensure that their conduct does not harm the wellbeing of others. Negligent misstatement is one of the approaches of people, which is deemed to harm the wellbeing of others through providing misstated advices or information that eventually results in loss or damages of some kind for others. This can be comprehensively understood from the case of Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd (Baili, 1963). According to an in-depth understanding of the case provided, it can be affirmed that the accident took place as Jones carelessly examined the process while resurfacing driveway of his premises. Moreover, he also overlooked adequate inspection processes regarding the incident of cutting electricity supply cable. The appropriate information about the cutting electric supply cable could enable Rashid to avoid severe injury, which may not further lead towards post-traumatic stress disorder type of syndromes. In this regard, it can be stated that the careless act performed by Jones leading to impose severe physical harm to Rashid can be duly treated under a criminal ground. With reference to the provided case, it has become quite apparent that the duty of care was breached by Jones, who was accused of working in an irresponsible manner, resulting Rashid to face severe electric shock while examining the resurfacing area. Therefore, it can be affirmed that the incident breached the principle relating to ‘duty of care.’ According to the fundamental principle of ‘duty of care’, the term tends to refer to the circumstance(s) and/or relationships that are recognised as providing legal duty towards ensuring effective care. An infringement of such law can result in the defendant being accountable to pay the damages of the party or the injured individual because of breaching ‘duty of care.’ In relation to the provided case, it is evident that the negligent act of Jones to his worker imposed major threat to Sally in terms of disrupting business of producing and selling ice cream to local restaurants and shops. In this similar context, Sally has the rights to claim against Jones due to his negligent advice to Rashid, leading major lose to Sally in terms of effectively perform her business. (ii) Any Claim in Tort that Tom may have against Harry Jones In relation to the fundamental concept of ‘duty of care’, the parties or individual may be exposed to claim for the violation of the aforesaid concept with the intention of preventing varied sorts of economic losses. The reality of a duty of care often makes an individual liable if the individual claims for loss of property along with facing a significant loss of financial assets. According to the basic principle of English Law, the legal case underneath the tort of negligence can be issued, if an individual or party experiences massive financial loss due to the misguidance of another party (Kinder, 2012). With reference to the interpretation, it has been widely accepted that economic loss or fatal financial collapse faced by a party typically refers to financial detriment, which can be projected on a balance sheet even if it is not physically justified (Waddell & Rothstein, 2011). In relation to the provided case, it has been critically identified that Tom may also have the equal rights to claim against the negligent advice of Jones, which imposed major loss on the overall business owned by both Sally and Tom. Being as an equal inheritor of the ice-cream manufacturing business, Tom also possesses adequate legal rights to claim against the negligent advice of Jones, which caused major financial loss within the business operations. With reference to the provided case scenario, it can be well perceived that the court might establish relevant claims against Jones due to having lack of care and responsibilities towards the wellness of Rashid while performing examination process without monitoring the present circumstances of the resurface area. Contextually, Jones is also subjected to vicarious liability underneath the legal principles of tort of negligence (Ward, 2010). In this regard, Jones is liable for the accidental event due to the advice given to his worker Rashid to inspect resurfacing area without ensuring adequate safety. However, the individual i.e. Rashid had experienced fatal and severe health problem due to the electric shock, which further causing traumatic problems to Rashid. In this regard, the case can be duly considered as a breach of duty of care by Jones, as he is evidently accused of making severe physical and mental injuries to the worker (Duckworth, 2014). Therefore, as similar to Sally, Tom is also legally authorised to claim against the negligent behaviour or advice of Jones that not only resulted in making major financial loss of the business, but also adversely impacted the physical and psychological conditions of the victim i.e. Rashid. (iii) Award of Damages for Loss of Earnings In the context of claiming for loss due to negligence, Jones is subjected to pay a large amount as his worker Rashid faced severe physical and mental injury due to the carelessness and lack of duty of care. Nevertheless, the negligent advice of Jones had further imposed major financial loss for Sally and Tom in terms of losing effectiveness while conducting their business. Therefore, Jones is subjected to have major burden to compensate loss of earnings to Rashid in the form of bearing medical expenses and the loss faced by Sally and Tom while performing ice-cream manufacturing and selling business. In this regard, the term ‘loss of earnings’ generally refers to a claim concerning past or future loss of a party due to the negligent advice of the other party. In this context, the loss may also be duly considered to make physical and/or mental harms or financial loss to any other party(s). According to the legal considerations, a claim associated with loss of earnings until expected retirement period is hard to resist only if a claimant is able to prove any sort of inability to continue with the current job role due to injury. In this similar context, the defendant is subjected to compensate the full amount excluding the net tax amount and other deductions until the age of retirement of the claimant (Ford, 2008). Therefore, it can be stated that the compensate amount is subjected to compensate by Jones only if Rashid can prove his inability to work with his current job roles. On the other hand, the regulatory guidelines regarding the breach of duty of care leading to impose major physical and/or mental harm represents distinct rules only if a claimant is able to improve his ability to continue with the job role after facing severe injury. In this regard, the claim for loss of earnings is accepted until the person ensures to become fully stable in continuing with his/her allocated roles along with responsibilities. Specially mentioning, the defendant is subjected to compensate the amounts that could be earned by the claimants, if he/she did not face any type of accidental event due to the breach of duty of care on behalf of their superiors. According to the case of Rashid, the claimant is liable to claim loss of earnings until he/she is not able to continue with the existing job roles (Duckworth, 2014). Correspondingly, the claim for loss of earnings can be justifiably accepted only if the injury has a long-lasting disability due to any accidental event. In this regard, a claim for being underprivileged may also rise, which might impose negative impact on the defendant to obtain adequate employment. It would be vital to mention in this context that the compensation amount is a nominal recognition, which further leads the claimants to lose their employment, imposing major threat to get new job in the current labour market. According to this type of circumstance, the award to be compensated to the claimants would usually be a lump sum amount equivalent to a certain period i.e. between six months to three years of their net current income (Lynch, 2009). Therefore, it is evident from the perspective of the case of Sally that the severe physical and mental injury of Rashid had appropriate liability to claim for loss of earnings. In response, he can also claim a lump sum income, if he decides to retire between six months to three years of working period. Part B 1. Liability for Negligent Advice Given by an Environmental Health Officer – A Case Example According to the current scenario of the law enforcement authorities or divisions, the concern associated with food safety has become an emerging issue leading to impose major risks for both large and medium sized enterprises. However, in various cases, the entrepreneurs can also be observed to misguide by the officers belonging to environmental health or food safety departments, leading to impose major financial loss for the entrepreneurs (Waddell & Rothstein, 2011). In this regard, the following case briefly summarises the negative impact of negligent advice provided by the environmental health or food safety department. Edward Sterling V. Northern Ireland Environment Agency: The case of Edward Sterling (Plaintiff) V. Northern Ireland Environment Agency (Defendant) can be duly regarded as one of the major examples in which the environment agency of Northern Ireland was accused to provide negligent advice to the plaintiff. In essence to the case, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant negligently advised him about the notion that he is no longer accredited to transport waste with the cancellation of the certificate (The High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, 2014). Nevertheless, the defendant of the case stated that the certificate remained valid, which further restricted the plaintiff to appeal, which he intended to pursue. The advice obtained from the officer from environmental agency had delayed the plaintiff to obtain physical possession of his certificate until five months after a successful appeal. In this context, the negligent advice from the offer of Northern Ireland Environment Agency had further witnessed to face major financial loss for Edward Sterling by lowering operational efficiency of his business (The High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, 2014). Therefore, due to the negligence of providing appropriate information regarding the validity of certificate by the officer of Northern Ireland Environment Agency, the officer is subjected to accuse underneath the tort of negligence. In this regard, the plaintiff i.e. Edward Sterling is liable to compensate as the entrepreneur has faced major financial loss due to the negligent advice of the officer of the environmental agency of Northern Ireland. With regards to the recent inspection of an environmental health officer employed by the local authority, Tom has also been observed to face a major financial loss. In this similar context, the negligent information concerning the food safety principles provided by the environmental health officer can be duly categorised as a tort of negligence, which made Tom to invest a huge figure of wealth to renovate manufacturing units of the business. Additionally, it can be stated that the misfeasance in providing information by the environmental health officer involves a major concern, which caused major financial loss to Tom. In this context, the officer of the environmental health agency is subjected to bear the responsibility behind a large financial loss incurred by Tom. Therefore, the negligence in providing appropriate information and threatening by the environmental health officer can be subjected to misguide Tom and face him a large financial loss. In this regard, Tom possesses adequate right to issue legal complaint against the environmental health officer or the agency under the ground of tort of negligence or non-compliance with the principles concerning duty of care. 2. Comparing the Case of Jain v Trent Strategic Health Authority 2009 with Edward Sterling V. Northern Ireland Environment Agency It is apparent from the above discussion that there lay certain similarities between negligent misstatement based on Tort Law and negligent misrepresentation based on Contract Law since both involve misstating or conveying certain information or advice that might harm others in later stages. Arguably, a considerable degree of difference can also be identified between these two concepts. Contextually, it would be crucial to mention that negligent misrepresentation of contract law is an action, which can only be executed when two or more parties are involved in a particular contract. On the other hand, the action of negligent misstatement based on tort law can be utilised even when two parties are not involved in any relationship. Another difference between the two is that negligent misstatement is used to tort or conduct fraudulent activities with others, while negligent misrepresentation is intended towards convincing others to move into any sort of contractual term (Practical Law, 2013). Hence, owing to this considerable difference between misrepresentation and misstatement, a difference between tort law and contract law can indeed be supported. With regard to an in-depth understanding of the case of Edward Sterling V. Northern Ireland Environment Agency, the adequate negligence of providing appropriate information about the renewal of waste revocation process by the environmental agency has significantly imposed major risks for Edward Sterling. In this case, it can be apparently observed that the plaintiff had visited to the environmental agency with the intention of applying legal certificate to transport wastes. However, lack of complying duty of care was apparently identified, which eventually imposed major obstacles for Sterling to perform business operations effectively (The High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, 2014). However, the case of Jain v. Trent Strategic Health Authority [2009] also depicts a similar scenario wherein legal compliances associated with duty of care have been breached. According to the case, it can be apparently observed that the nursing home business owned by Mr and Mrs Jain has faced alleged wrongdoing by the local authoritative agency as a form of cancelling its registration. The order to of cancelling registration was made in the year 1998 without any prior notice served to the proprietors. In order to get recover from such financial damage, Jains appealed against the local authority’s order to a tribunal. However, the appeal was not heard until February 1999, resulting in making huge financial loss to the nursing home business owned by Jains. In this regard, Jains subsequently sued the local authoritative agency, as the appeal had not been heard until four months that incurred massive financial loss to the owner of the business (Charles Russell, LLP, n.d.). However, the circumstances observed in the case of Jains cannot be owed to the proprietors as a duty of care. According to the legal principles, the local authority, who possesses legal rights to protect individuals, does not owe a duty of care to the institutions providing healthcare services. In this regard, the claims made by Jains cannot be considered as a breach of duty of care by the local authority, rather the case can be brought after the Human Rights Act 1998 (Charles Russell, LLP, n.d.). Conclusion In order to make justifiable claim of tortuous liability in negligence to be actionable, there lay certain fundamental pre-requisites that need to be established. According to the modern principles relating to tort of negligence, a few major criteria are generally considered. Firstly, ensuring whether the duty of care was obligated by the defendant or the defendant was involved in breaching the principles of duty of care. Finally, it is essential to identify whether breach in duty of care results in causing any physical or mental damage to the claimants. Based on the case study provided, it has been apparently noted that the plaintiffs including Sally and Tom possess adequate rights to claim against the breach in duty of care made by Jones. Moreover, the plaintiffs can also claim against Jones under the ground of tort of negligence due to major financial loss faced by the owners of the ice-cream business. References Charles Russell, LLP. (n.d.). Case analysis - Trent Strategic Health Authority v Jain. Retrieved from http://www.charlesrussell.co.uk/UserFiles/file/pdf/Healthcare/Briefing_note_-_Care_homes_-_Case_analysis%20-%20Trent%20Stretegic%20Health%20Authority%20v%20Jain.pdf Duckworth, E. (2014). Claims for loss of earnings - A different approach. Retrieved from http://www.bevanbrittan.com/articles/Pages/Claimsforlossofearnings.aspx Ford, J. (2008). Rehabilitation for work matters. United Kingdom: Radcliffe Publishing. Kinder, R., 2012. Torts 2nd edition. London: Oxford University Press. Lynch, J. (2009). Clinical responsibility. United Kingdom: Radcliffe Publishing. The High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland. (2014). Edward Sterling and Northern Ireland Environment Agency. Retrieved from http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial%20Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2014/[2014]%20NIQB%208/j_j_GIL9109Final.htm Waddell, M. L. & Rothstein, P. R. R. (2011). The limits to recovery: economic loss claims from the defendant’s perspective. Retrieved from http://www.paliareroland.com/docs/articles/the-limits-to-recovery-economic-loss-claims-from-the-defendant-s-perspective.pdf?sfvrsn=8 Ward, P., 2010. Tort law in Ireland. United Kingdom: Kluwer Law International. Read More