Solutions to the Problems through the Application of -Solving Skills from a Legal Perspective - Math Problem Example

Tort Law Claims By student’s name Course code+ name Professor’s name University name City, state Date of submission Introduction The law of tort focuses on civil wrongs committed against individuals. The nature of the civil wrong may be such that it causes personal injury to the victim or destruction to the property of the victim. This paper presents solutions to the legal problems presented through the application of problem-solving skills from a legal perspective. The paper addresses issues such as the liability of an employer for psychiatric harm caused to its employees, the possible claims under economic loss, identifying causation where there are multiple causes, the defenses available in tort law and how the courts assess the level of damages a victim is entitled where there is loss of future earnings. Question 1 Issue The issues are whether Homer can claim in negligence for the serious injuries resulting from the fryer explosion and whether Homer and his aunt can claim in negligence from Springfield Desserts for the psychiatric illnesses caused as a result of the explosion of the fryer. Rule A claim in negligence will succeed where the claimant can show that the defendant owed them a duty, which was breached resulting in injury or damage to the claimant. In Donoghue v Stevenson,1 Lord Atkin established the neighbor principle which states that a person must maintain reasonableness in taking care to avoid such acts or omissions which one can reasonably foresee that they would result to harm to persons who would directly be affected by such conduct.2 Application It is well established that the explosion of the fryer used to cook doughnuts was as a result of the carelessness the employer, Springfield Desserts. Due to the carelessness of Springfield Desserts, the fryer exploded, and part of the debris hit Homer leading to serious injuries and psychiatric illness to both him and his aunt. Springfield Desserts had a duty of care to ensure that the equipment used was in good condition, and no harm would be befall the employees. The explosion of the fryer was a breach of this duty. The fact that Homer was injured as a result of the explosion means that he has a right to claim for damages under negligence for the serious injuries (British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2016, 4).3 The next question focuses on whether or not Homer and his aunt have a claim in negligence against Springfield Desserts for the psychiatric illness. For a person to be found liable for negligently inflicting psychiatric injury, the victim must have suffered actual psychiatric injury.4 In this case, both Homer and his aunt have been diagnosed with a recognized psychiatric illness. The courts must also determine whether or not the victim is a primary or secondary victim. The court in Page v Smith5 held that a primary victim must demonstrate that they were in the zone of physical danger. The fact that a piece of the debris from the fryer hit Homer satisfies the fact that he was in the zone of physical danger. Secondary victims are those that witness the horrific events. They must show a close tie of love to the primary victim, witness the event with their unaided senses, proximity to the event and the psychiatric injury must be as a result of the shocking event. Homer’s aunt loved Homer since he was his favorite aunt. Though the event occurred a few hundred meters away from her office, she was near the event since it was in the same building. The psychiatric injury also arose from the shocking event. However, she did not witness the event with her unaided eyes. She saw the whole thing through a webcam located on the factory floor. In Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire,6 it was held that seeing the events on television was not sufficient. This would mean that homer’s aunt is not a secondary victim hence has no claim. However, the webcam revealed a live event which is different from a television hence she could be considered a secondary victim.7 Conclusion Homer has a claim in negligence against Springfield Desserts for the physical injuries and the psychiatric illness resulting from the explosion. Homer’s aunt, however, has no claim since, though she suffered psychiatric illness as a result of the event, she did not see it with her unaided eyes since it was through a webcam. Question 2 Issue The issue is whether Paul has any claims in economic loss against Ringo and The Financial Bugle. Rule In the case of Hedley Byrne & Co. v Heller & Partners Ltd,8 the court held that a duty of care can arise from statements that result in pure economic loss. Application Pure economic loss refers to financial loss that does not result from physical injury to the claimant as a person or his/her property. Pure economic loss is based on the law of negligence such that the claimant must show that a duty of care existed, such duty was breached and that there was an injury that arose from the breach of such a duty. In Anns v Merton London Borough Council,9 the court relied on the decision in Hedley Byrne’s case to set out the prerequisites for a claim in pure economic loss to succeed. The court stated that the claimant has to show that there was a proximity relationship between him and the wrongdoer such that the defendant ought to reasonably contemplate that carelessness on his part may result to harm. Once the first condition is fulfilled, the claimant must also show that there are no considerations that limit the scope of the duty of care.10 Whether or not Paul has any claim against Ringo and The Financial Bugle depends on if these conditions can be proven. Ringo was Paul’s accountant which means that there was a professional relationship between them. Ringo had a duty to ensure that any advice given to Paul is not false, inaccurate or misleading. The professional relationship means that there was proximity between the two parties.11 Ringo advised Paul that PC Universe plc would be a good investment opportunity but warned him to seek further advice before purchasing any shares. The advice that Paul could invest was misleading since the company went into liquidation. However, Ringo’s liability is limited by the fact that he told Paul not to rely on his advice alone but to seek further advice. It seems that Ringo was aware that his statement would be relied on and by warning Paul to seek further advice, he had discharged the duty of care.12 The Financial Bugle had a duty to ensure that the information published would be correct since they could reasonably foresee that such information would be relied upon by the readers. The fact that they published false information about PC Universe means that they breached the duty of care and should be held liable. However, if the information was given under the belief that it was true, the newspaper could be exempted from liability.13 Conclusion Paul has no claim against Ringo because he had discharged his duty by warning him to seek further advice. Paul, however, has a valid claim for economic loss against The Financial Bugle for publishing false information which resulted in the loss of his money. Question 3 Issue The issue is whether Anthony and Declan have a right to claim compensation for mesothelioma and asbestos from No More Chills Company and Heating limited and, further, which company is substantially responsible for the harm. Rule In Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee,14 the court established the “but for test” to establish causation. The court observed that a breach of a duty of care is considered to have caused harm if it would not have occurred “but for” that breach. Application The “but for” test is used to establish the cause of the harm to the plaintiff. where, after the application of the test it is determined that the harm would have occurred even without the act or omission of the defendant, the defendant will be held not liable. However, where the harm would not have occurred had the defendant not acted, he will be held liable. The situation becomes complex where there are multiple causes.15 In this case, Anthony and Declan were carelessly exposed to asbestos by the two employers they worked for in the last twenty years. They worked with the first employer for 15 years and the other one for five years. As a result of the exposure, Anthony has been diagnosed with mesothelioma and Declan with asbestosis. The two employers were careless since they exposed their employees to asbestos knowing that it is a risk to their health. This establishes negligence and gives Anthony and Declan the right to sue. The burden of proof lies on the Anthony and Declan to establish which employer contributed to the illnesses. The court in Fairchild v Glenhaven16 held that if the claimant can demonstrate that one of the employers had materially increased the risk of contracting mesothelioma and asbestos, the plaintiff can claim full compensation from that employer. However, where the plaintiff cannot dispense of with that burden, the court may order both employers to pay jointly.17 Though both Anthony and Declan worked for the first employer for a longer time than the second one, there is no way to tell which of them is materially liable since they were both careless. As such Anthony and Declan could sue both employers. However, since No More Chills Company has been declared bankrupt, Anthony and Declan should go after Heating Limited for compensation.18 Conclusion Both Anthony and Declan have a right to sue both employers. However, since the first has become bankrupt, they could go after the second employer for compensation of the full amount of damages to be awarded by the court. Question 4 Issue The issue is whether Ronnie’s employer can rely on any of the available defenses in the law of torts for the injury caused to Ronnie. Rule Section 1(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 provides that where a person is injured as a result partly of his own fault and partly of another person’s fault, the other person shall not be exempted from liability by virtue of the fault of the injured person. Application In Butterfield v Forrester,19 the court established the defence of contributory negligence and held that the fact that one person is at fault will not dispense with another person’s duty to use ordinary care to protect himself. This means that the fact that a person has done something that exposes another to danger does not mean that the one exposed does not have a duty to exercise ordinary care to protect himself from such harm. Section 1(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act clearly provides that where the injured person is also at fault, the amount of damages will be reduced.20 Ronnie had complained for a number of times about the fact that the safety screen on the forklift he was driving had been removed so that a new one could be installed. The employer, however, refused to install the safety screen and while Ronnie was operating the forklift truck, the concrete slabs fell on him causing severe head injuries. Ronnie was also diagnosed with severe psychiatric illness which made him prone to anger and aggression. The employer had a duty to install the screen but refused to do so. This amounted to a breach of the duty of care. As a result of the breach, Ronnie was injured. This gives him, the right to sue for damages for compensation for the said loss. However, Ronnie had also refused to wear a safety helmet. This brings about the defence of contributory negligence that can be relied on by Bricks R Us. The defence, however, cannot be used to bar Ronnie entirely from seeking damages. The effect would be to reduce Bricks R Us liability for the injuries caused to Ronnie. However, Ronnie would still be in a position to claim some compensation for the injuries. In the case that Ronnie’s employer would be sought for the liability of the death of the passenger who was stabbed to death by Ronnie, Bricks R Us could plead the defence that the plaintiff is the wrongdoer. This is to say that Ronnie’s actions were unlawful hence, he should be held liable entirely for the death of the passenger.21 Conclusion Ronnie’s employer would be entitled to plead contributory negligence. This is because though the employer had refused to put the safety screen leading to the injury, the harm was also caused by Ronnie's failure to wear a safety helmet. Bricks R Us could also rely on the defence that the plaintiff, Ronnie, is the wrongdoer in regard to the murder of the passenger. Question 5 Issue The issue, in this case, is to determine how the courts will assess the level of damages John is entitled to for future loss of earnings as a result of the accident. Rule In Lim Poh Choo v Camden and Islington Health Authority,22 Lord Scarman held that the award of damages as a result of the injuries caused to the claimant which covers the past, present and future loss must be paid in a lump sum as assessed at the end of the legal process.23 Application Compensation for future loss of earnings occurs where the income stream of the victim is affected. The income stream of the victim that would have been available to the victim has been interrupted as a result of the injury. In this case, John was forced to resign from his job as a golf coach due to the back injury where he earned 100,000 pounds per year. He has a part-time job which earns him 10,000 pounds per year meaning that his loss of earnings per year is 90,000 pounds. In calculating the amount to be paid for future loss of earnings, courts assess the net annual loss of earnings, also known as the multiplicand and also make an allowance for the period during which the loss of earnings is supposed to continue. For the multiplicand, the court takes the difference between future net earnings before the injury and after the injury which in this case is 90,000 pounds per year.24 The second part is the multiplier that takes into account the number of years between the date of the trial and the estimated time of retirement from work. This is to be multiplied with the net loss of earnings per year. However, where the claimant is young causing a 40-year loss of earnings, the court only accounts for 24 years because it takes into account the fact that the victim will invest the lump sum.25 Conclusion The court will use the multiplicand and the multiplier methods of assessing the damages John is entitled to especially because the nature of the injury is such that he would never play golf meaning he cannot return to his coaching job. References Best Arthur & Barnes David, Basic tort law: cases, statutes, and problems (Aspen Publishers 2007). British Institute of International and Comparative Law, ‘Introduction to English tort law’ (BIICL, 2016) [Accessed 21 April 2016] Buck Gord & Nadeau Michael 2013, ‘Pure economic loss’ (Alexander Holburn Beaudin, 2013) accessed 21 April 2016] David Hillel, McCague Paul & Yaniszewski Peter, (McCague Borlack, 2005) ‘Proving causation where the but for test is unworkable‘ accessed 21 April 2016 Eliott Catherine and Quinn Frances 2015, Tort Law (Pearson Higher Ed., 2015). Flaming James 2015, ‘Contributory negligence’ (2015) The Yale Law Journal, 62(5), 691-735. Lewis Richard, McNabb Robert, Robinson Hellen & Wass Victoria, Court awards of damages for loss of future earnings: An empirical study and an alternative method of calculation, (Cardiff University, Wales, 2010). Lindsay Robert, ‘Liability for economic loss under common law and statute’ (Australian Journals, 2014) accessed 21 April 2016 Tufal Asif, ‘Remedies in tort’ (Law Teacher, 2000) accessed 21 April 2016 Waddell Margaret 2011, The limits to recovery: Economic loss claims from the defendant’s perspective, (Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP, 2011). Read More