Obligations Law and the Law of Negligence - Assignment Example

Name Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Instructor Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 14th February, 2012. In general, obligation refers to the responsibilities which have to be fulfilled by a party and these obligations can in some cases incur penalties if they are unfulfilled. However, obligations of the parties vary and hence there are different obligations accruing to both the owner of the train, the operator of the train and the affected parties1. For instance, there is an implied obligation on the part of the owner of the train in that the train was supposed to be thoroughly inspected and repaired, an obligation which was supposed to be fulfilled before the speed test could be conducted. Negligence is therefore seen on the part of the owner of the train and which attracts legal obligations. Railroad accident almost always occur because of someone is irresponsible and fails to follow safety guidelines. Train operators have a legal obligation to ensure that all trains are well maintained and railway tracks are repaired before each train embarks on its journey1. As a consequence of this victims of train accident, can easily claim compensation and win if they can prove their cases. However, under the law of negligence, for a plaintiff to claim for damages, proximate cause of the loss caused must be established and which the case facts establishes that there was some fault that was as a result of negligence on the part of the owner of the train2. Therefore, Catalina and Joy were liable for compensation arising from negligent actions of the train owner. In defense, the train owner might argue that the plaintiffs brought the misfortunes on themselves for being too close to the scene of action but nonetheless, law identifies implied obligations to be of equal standing to expressed obligations and hence there was an implied obligation on the part of the owner that the train was properly maintained to perform such a test hence the plaintiffs, Catalina and Joy can claim for damages. Under the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006 (ROGS), safety verification procedures are among the most important policies of ROGS. The operator also has a duty to perform safety verification which is solely his duty due to the increase in the number of risks. However, in the event of a new risk which can occur and to which the case facts establishes that the testing of the speed of the train is a significant event, the operator was liable for ensuring that there would be utmost safety during the test drive, a fact that is not presented. Though appearing straight forward, Catalina’s claim for obligation of care would not be easiest to show. Though the psychiatric harm caused to her when she run to avoid physical damage may seem obvious to those close to her, proving it to a court beyond reasonable doubt would not be easy. Further claims of loss caused by being unable to work would be called into question by the defendant. It would be hard to establish horrific flashbacks as the reason she is unable to work. Darnell though not actually present at the scene of the accident, can still claim compensation for the depression arising from events of that day that involved his wife. Obligation in this case is implied obligation, by the fact that the train operator failed to inspect the track and ensure the safety of his wife and that the live broadcast of the speed record attempt would not contain any emotionally disturbing images1. Randy also suffered prolonged nervous shock, due to emotional distress caused by seeing the horrific injuries suffered by the victims of the crash. These injuries were caused by the negligence of the rail company. In a similar case Consolidated Rail Corporation, Peti Tioner v. James E. Gottshall, on [June 24, 1994], Justice Thomas of the United States Supreme Court decided that Gottschalk was able to satisfy that; he suffered emotional injuries as a result of watching his friend John die, and consequently the court ruled in his favor. Similarly through precedence in law, Randy can claim that the Rail operator was liable for the nervous shock resulting from his involvement in the aftermath of the train accident. The facts in Randy’s case are very similar to an earlier case Chadwick v British Railways Board [1967] QBD, where, the wife of a rescuer involved in the rescue of victims after a horrific train accident had sued the Railways Board for negligence that resulted in the accident3. Subsequently his husband had suffered nervous shock and turned psychoneurotic5. The following Judgment was made in the wife’s favor “Damages are recoverable for nervous shock even where the shock is not caused by fear for oneself or the safety of one's children and in the circumstances injury by shock was foreseeable” The Fatal accidents Act 1976 sets out the grounds for compensation of relatives who have lost their loved ones through fatal injury or disease. For Joy’s case, she can claim express obligation for the loss of her daughter whose life was lost in the accident arising from the rail operator’s negligence. She can also take the rail company indirectly liable for the deep shock experienced upon identifying her daughter as one of the fatalities. In claiming compensation for the accidental death of her daughter she has to prove some certain facts. The first fact to be established is that the train accident caused the death of Joy’s daughter. Secondly, that the negligence of the rail operator was the cause of the accident that caused the death of Joy’s daughter. Thirdly, Joy must prove that she is a relative of her deceased daughter. Finally, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the family suffered financially due to her death. Compensation for wrongful death normally covers medical expenses, funeral expenses, bereavement damages and dependency awards among other compensations. Joy is also liable for compensation due to the shock that she suffered as a result of her daughter’s death4. Under the laws of negligence, the plaintiff must prove that psychological disorder was caused solely by the result of the accident, that Joy daughter’s death was as a result of the accident and that the in eventuality (the accident) caused deep shock to her. In a similar case McLaughlinvs. O’Brian (1983, McLaughlinvs’s husband and children were involved in a road accident caused by the negligence of the defendant. One of her children died and her husband suffered injuries. Later on when she saw her children and husband suffering she suffered shock depression and a changed personality. In this case she was able to prove proximity to those involved in the accident, as she was a close relative. Similarly, Joy can prove that she suffered great emotional harm, from the loss of her young daughter. Crabshack Ltd.’s loss at the restaurant they operated at the train station is another case for argument on whether the rail operator has any obligation to honor their compensation claims. Protection of property Act R.S., c. 363, s. 1, defines a ‘motor vehicle’ as a vehicle propelled by power other than muscular power3. This implies that in the case involving the train, the train is considered legally a motor vehicle. In this case then, the owner of the Crabshack Ltd should seek compensation from the rail company regardless of whether or not they have insured for such accidents. Under the above named act, the Crabshack Ltd can not only claim for the losses incurred after the accident like the profits they would have collected from the restaurant, the cost of rebuilding the restaurant and the cost of goods which were in the display and stock. For all these to be compensated the filer of the case must conduct a conclusive investigation as to what caused the damages and whether the train operator was in a position to (in anyway) prevent the accident. Then under the property insurance act the complainant should receive all the compensation necessary from the track owner. In all the cases, it’s only the Darnell’s case which does not have good legal ground to claim for compensation since by watching the whole accident scene through the television it fails to satisfy the court’s substantial threshold. Though with a good advocate he can have his case go through and be compensated. Proving that the rail operator has an obligation would be an uphill task as happened in the case of Bourhill v Young (1943) HL; the defendant a motorcyclist was fatally injured5. The complaint a pregnant woman 15 yards did not see the actual accident but saw blood. This caused her shock and, later, a miscarriage. This case was lost on the grounds that the consequences of the accident were not foreseeable and nothing could have been done to prevent the eventuality. Applying this precedent on Darnell’s claims it would be likely he would lose his case. From all the discussed cases above we can conclude that the rail operator had the obligation to ensure that the passengers on board, those waiting on the platform and other members of the public in close proximity of the railway line were safe during the speed record attempt. The tracks should have been inspected several times over before attempting such a risky undertaking. The tragic event of this accident and since the rail operator is liable for negligence resulting in injury, loss of life and damage to property, the operator’s license should be withdrawn. Bibliography McFadzean.D. & McFadden.J et al. 2009. Introduction to law and legal Obligations. Dundee: Dundee University Deakin, S., Johnston. A & Markesinis. B. 2003. Tort Law. 5th Ed.UK: Oxford University Press. Kevan, T. & Kwiatkowski, M., 2005. Fatal Accidents Compensation.UK: XPL law press. Cook, J. & Phil, M., 1995 .Negligently caused psychiatric injury: A way forward. Liverpool: Kluweracademic Publishers. Lunney, M. & Oliphant, K. 2003. Tort Law – Texts, Cases 2nd Ed. Oxfrord, UK. Oxford University Press. Brelmel, L. 2009. Private Property. UK: Hauderk Samhain publishers. Read More