Analysis of Tort Law Cases - Assignment Example

A tort is an injury to a person or property compensable under law. Injury is broadly defined to include more than physical damages but psychological as well. A legal claim in tort must satisfy the four elements which are (a) there must be a legal duty of care to another person, (b) there must be a breach of that duty, (c) the claimant must have suffered injuries or damages, and (d) the damages must have been proximately caused by the breach of duty (NCSU, 2007). Torts include negligence, malpractice, battery, assault, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (MCSS, 2001). There are three classifications of tort liabilities. These are strict liability, vicarious liability, and joint and several liabilities (Findlaw, 1999). Strict liability torts are torts that do not require intent or negligence and are typically confined to hazardous activities and product liability cases; vicarious liability imposes liability on one person for a tortious act of another person. Vicarious liability is divided into two contexts which are respodeat superior (where an employer is liable for his employee’s torts including intentional torts) and independent contractors (where a defendant who engages an independent contractor is not liable to others for the acts or omissions of the independent contractor); and joint and several liabilities are tortious acts involving two or more liable defendants by indivisible jury (Findlaw, 1999). According to the doctrine of respodeat superior, an employer can be held liable for the employee’s torts (including intentional torts) if the employee was acting on the scope of employment satisfying the following conditions: (a) the conduct must occur substantially within the time and space limits authorized by employment; (b) the employee must at least be motivated by the purpose to serve the employer; and (c) the act must have been of a kind that employee was hired to perform (Findlaw, 1999). The discussion on tort liability that would follow will be based on these principles. Joanna All of the event could have been reasonably foreseen by DART. The warning system in the Sutton DART station did not provide a warning signal to make the general public aware of the coming train. DART has a Duty of Care towards the general public which should have been achieved had the warning system signaled the arrival of a train. Because of the failure of the warning system to function accordingly, and because of the inaction of DART on the matter, DART can be charged with negligence and Breach of Duty of Care. These are the facts that entitle Joanna to compensation for damages under the principles of Negligence, Duty of Care, and Psychiatric Injury. There is negligence on the part of DART which results to Joanna’s condition. Joanna can sue DART for Negligence and Breach to the Duty of Care. The ground for negligence is valid and extends to Joanna who is just crossing the railway gates under the “neighbor principle” in Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) where DART has the obligation to look after its actions so that it would not do any harm to the people that may be affected by such actions. In other words, the disaster could have been averted but no actions were done, subjecting dart to foreseeable principle. DART’s inspectors has not made any attempt to perform its duties of care to the public by securing the premise, or if it does it did not do anything about it, thus results to the psychiatric condition of Joanna. Joanna could claim that the only way to prevent the injury of the incident caused by DART train would be to close the railway gates from public access and since this was not done, DART is liable for breach of the Duty of Care, as was seen in Latimer v. AEC (1953) and Murphy v. Brentwood DC (1990). Under the rule of tort liability as well as with the rulings mentioned above, Joanna can seek for compensation by bringing her case to trial. Richard Richard has a claim for tort liability against DART on the grounds of Breach of Duty of Care held by Ward v. T.E. Hopkins & Sons (1959). In this case, the company was held liable for tort damages because (a) there was a proof of negligence on the part of the company towards its employees; (b) such negligence placed the lives of employees at greater risks; (c) the neglect could reasonably been foreseen; and (d) the event could have reasonably foreseen that someone would seek to rescue those who are in peril that might either suffer injury or loss their lives. As was discussed above, DART could have foreseen the whole event and could have initiated necessary measures to prevent the event from occurring, thus fulfilling its Duty of Care, but none were undertaken. This gives Richard the right to claim for compensation under the principle of Breach of Duty of Care. Richard can also claim for compensation from DART for Psychological Injury, particularly clinical depression, which developed after his rescue of the passengers of DART. The possibility of rescue, regardless of the manner with which the act was undertaken, is immaterial in Richard’s case as long as negligence on the part of DART can be substantiated. The decision of Wagner v International Ry Co (1921) holds for this situation because Richard’s Psychological Injury was obtained as a consequence of DART’s negligence. Richard has the right for recovery from any physical injuries (Brandon v Osborne Garrett & Co Lt [1924]) and to any psychological injuries he has acquired in the process (Bourhill v. Young [1943]; McLoughlin v. O’Brein [1982]). DART could not impose negligence or Volenti non fit Injura resulting to Psychological injuries on Richards according to the ruling of Eckert v. Long Island RR (1871). In other words, Richard can claim for compensation for psychological injuries and other related claims such as Pure Economic Loss if his performance of his job is affected by the psychological injuries he incurred. Martha Although Martha has suffered no physical injury during the accident, she can claim for tort liability from DART under the provisions stated in the ruling of Page v. Smith (1996) where it claims that Martha is entitled to compensation regardless if she suffered physical or psychiatric injury. In addition to that, the discussion of Neglect and Breach of Duty of Care applies to Martha’s case. Martha has a good cause of the claim because of the psychological damage it did to her from the loss of her fiancée and the effects of trauma of the whole disaster on her. Apparently, there is substantial proof for the claims for Neglect and Breach of Duty of Care against DART since DART should have foreseen such event would happen and should have grounded the train to avoid damages and casualties in lives and properties. Breach of Duty of Care was incurred by DART because of the lives that were lost due to DART’s negligence. In Martha’s case, psychiatric injury was foreseeable and thus ordinary rules of Negligence apply as held in McLoughlin v. O’Brein (1982). On top of that, Martha can be considered as a primary victim as well because of the foreseeable circumstances that determines Martha and her fiancée would incur physical and mental damages as held by Caparo v. Dickman (1990). Under the ruling of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932), Martha can claim for tort liability to DART because DART has an obligation to look after its actions including those of its employees and machineries by constantly monitoring them for maintenance whenever necessary. Patrick As for Patrick’s case, he can claim for tort liability on RTE and on DART. Patrick can still claim for tort liability from DART even though his Psychological Injury is indirectly caused by the accident and even though his proximity is very far from where the accident happened because the ruling on Bourhill v. Young (1943) holds for this case. Bourhill v. Young (1943) does not question the proximity of the victim from where the incident happened but considers the liability of the defendant given the circumstance. The ruling on Page v. Smith (1996) also works for the case of Patrick since he still has had damages from the shock of knowing that his child has died even though he did not have had any physical injuries. DART can be proven guilty of negligence for Patrick’s case because of the foreseeable circumstance that would initiate such reaction. The ruling on Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1991] holds true for Patrick’s claims which means to say that Patrick can claim for tort liability from RTE for Negligence resulting to his Psychiatric Injury. RTE can be held responsible for the actions of its employees since the report was not edited and has shown sensitive information that may result to public concerns. Cases Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1991] 4 All ER 907, HL Bourhill v. Young [1943] AC 42  Brandon v Osborne Garrett & Co Lt [1924] KB 548 Caparo v. Dickman (1990) 2 AC 605 Eckert v. Long Island RR Co (1871) 43 N. Y. 502 Latimer v. AEC (1953) AC 643 (HL) McLoughlin v. O’Brein [1982] [1983] 1 AC 410 Murphy v. Brentwood DC (1990) [1991] AC 398 (HL) Page v. Smith (1996) [1996] AC 155 (HL) Wagner v International Ry Co (1921) Court of Appeals of New York, 1921 133 N.E. 437 Ward v. T.E. Hopkins & Sons (1959). 3 All E.R. 225 at 241 Wilkinson v. Downtown (1897). 2 QED 57 (1897) References Duhaime, Lloyd. Negligence: An Introduction. Tort and Personal Injury. Accessed on March 31, 2009 from  http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/TortPersonalInjury/tabid/348/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/73/Negligence--An-Introduction.aspx Findlaw Inc. Tort Liability Basics: Strict, Vicarious, and Joint Liability. 1999. Accessed on March 31, 2009 from http://www.inc.com/articles/1999/11/15396.html   Missouri Center for Safe Schools. 2001. The Tort of Negligence. Accessed on March 31, 2009 from http://education.umkc.edu/safe-school/documents/mononeg.pdf NC State University. Tort Liability. September 2007. Accessed on March 31, 2009 from http://www.ncsu.edu/legal/legal_topics/tort.php      Read More