Elements of Torts and Negligent Acts
The facts of this case bring points to a case of negligence on the part of Sara. He negligent acts brought about a chain of tragedies which were beyond her control and lives of many people who were involved were changed forever. For a proof of negligence, a situation must be analyzed carefully and all the elements of torts must be fulfilled. They include the duty of care, breach of duty; cause in fact, proximate cause and loss or damages as a result of the breach. Negligent acts can either be commission or omission of certain actions and normally people are negligent on their line of duty. A critical analysis of the events that transpired in this case will be undertaken to determine who was liable for the actions or not.
The plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed them a duty of care in a particular situation. For instance, the House of Lords stated that every individual in the world owes their neighbor a duty of care. A neighbor is who is directly affected by your actions. Thus one must reasonably allow them to contemplate that their neighbors actions are going to cause emotional damage or otherwise. For instance, parents owe their children a duty of care because they look upon the parents to provide security, guidance, and all the basic needs. In this particular case, Zarine owed her daughter a duty of care as they were in the playground. She was supposed to be keen watching the child from explore ng dangerous endeavors. Even when she was talking to another parent, her mind should not have escaped the fact that she had a child who she was supposed to watch over. On the other hand, Jack owed both people both of them and the road users a duty of care by acting in a civilized manner so that he could not infringe on the rights of the motorists and passers-by.
From the events of this case, it is obvious that Zarine breached the duty of care to Sara. She never provided the required guidance and surveillance to her daughter. In fact she absconded her duty to watch of the child therefor exposing her to a greater risk of being hit by the motorists on the road. As a result the girl ran towards the road aimlessly and was close to being run over by Bob. On seeing the possibility of a tragedy happening Jack acted fast and ran to save the child. As a responsible parent, Jack was under an obligation to save the child if he was in a position to do so. He acted reasonably saved the child from being hit by the car. As a motorist, Bob was driving at a reasonable speed. He too owed other motorists and other road users a duty of care by driving at a reasonable speed and driving roadworthy vehicle among other requirements. Based on the fact that Jack appeared abruptly on the road while running at a very high speed, Bob had little or no chance to avoid the collisions because the situation unfolded inform of him. The collision between him and Jack was accidental because there were very slim chances of avoiding such an accident, He could as well risk causing injuries to himself if he tried to swerve the care to avoid collision with Jack. Despite the fact that Bob owed other motorists a duty of care by driving carefully to avoid causing unnecessary accidents, jack’s abrupt appearance on the road led him to breach that duty unknowingly and unwillingly. It was beyond his control because he had to do the greater good by avoiding causing multiple accidents for the motorists who were behind him on the road. After colliding with Jack, Bob’s care skid off the road and crashed on the children’s playground but no one was injured because there were no children playing there at the moment of the crash.
Duty of Care and Liability of Parties Involved
Al other motorists and people who were affected by the accident like Leonard and Sara’s grandmother were victims of circumstances. Laura was driving at a high speed in an area where there is children’s playground. Based on the element of duty of care, She indeed owed the children who play there, a duty of care as well as other motorists. However, she drove at a high speed and crashed on the tree. Additionally, one holds his/herself a duty of care. Laura breached that duty by driving in a high speed in a place where she was supposed to observe caution. Additionally, the oil spilled on the road contributed to skidding of Laura’s vehicle. The person who poured oil on the road breached the duty of care he/she was supposed to honor for the sake of the motorists who were using that road. Additionally, she owed a duty of care to Leonard who was standing next to the tree where her car crashed. Leonard expected minimum disturbance from the motorists, but was traumatized by the event of that day and more so the crashing of Laura’s car on the tree next to where he was standing. A s a result, underlying personality disorder was aroused and he was unable to attend work. As a result, Leonard developed fear and was unable to show up for the work because paranoia.
In observing the breach of duty by certain individuals in this case it is important to observe their actions and analyze them in relation to the following standards.
- Whether the actions of the defendant were aligned to the common practice and industry recommendations. In the event that such action as are in line with the industry requirements and common practice then defendant will be found to have fulfilled their duty provided that the common practice is not negligent in itself. The common practice for parents during a normal outing with their children is to hold their hands or carry their children to avoid exposing them to risky activities. This was not the case in this particular event because Zarine left her daughter to run to the road unaware of the risk inherent in her actions.
- There was a form of social benefit to the defendant’s actions. If so, then the court may find it inappropriate for the defendant to be deemed to have breached their duty. There was a social benefit for Zarine to have some chat with another parent Jack as the brought children in the playground. There was a social benefit on the part of Jack as he tried to save Sara from being hit by Bob’s car. In that regard, the greater good for saving the child from a speeding vehicle overrides the consequences of causing an accident on the road and therefore he should not be found guilty of breaching a duty. In fact, he fulfilled a duty of saving a child
- The actions by the defendant had a high probability of being risky. If they did, then they will be expected by the court to prove that they took extra precautions to prevent he damage or loss. Zarine’s actions had a high probability of risk as well as Jack’s actions. For Zarine to leave a small kid to run to the road was a huge risk while Jack’s actions to run towards the road at a high speed created a huge risk over his life.
- There were issues that that prevented reasonable the defendant from taking precautions, or unreasonable costs would be incurred in taking such precautions. If there were, then there will be very least expectations by the court that the defendant took such precautions in order to meet their duty of care. In this particular aspect, Bob and Laura’s actions come into play. The court should consider the fact the two were on their normal driving activities on the road and they never expected such events to unfold. The appearance of Jack was unexpected and there were no reasonable precautions could be taken to avoid hitting him. The same case applies to Laura who did not expect an accident to unfold in front of her and as a result she pressed brakes and skid to the tree when her car crashed though it did not hit someone, it traumatized Leonard who later lost his job due to the paranoia.
- The defendant is a person carrying out his/her professional duties. If that is the case, then the court will make a determination by judging their actions against those of reasonable professional in their line of work, as opposed to just any ordinary person. The court will make its judgement against the professional guidelines rather than the defendant’s expectations. No person was carrying out their professional duty and this standard may not be used as a benchmark in the determination of this particular case.
A lot of damage and injuries were caused by the breach of duty by Zarine. Jack was physically injured by Bob’s car, Bob lost control of the care and rammed on the tree hence damaging his care. Laura’s car too was damaged as a result of the accident and she might have suffered physical injuries too. Leonard, personality disorder came to haunt him as a result of the trauma he underwent after seeing the effects of the accident. Sara’s grandmother was also traumatized by the events that unfolded and she suffered emotional injuries.
This refers to a legal inquiry as to whether the defendant’s commission or omission directly causes the injuries on the plaintiffs. This legal doctrine is used by defendants to absolve them liability in the case where their negligent acts contributed indirectly to injury of loss to other people. It is very easy to argue the fact that Zarine’s actions to abandon her daughter Sara to run towards the road may not have contributed directly to the harm or injury that Laura and Leonard went through. However, her actions may have a direct link to jacks’ injury as well as damages caused to Bob because she could have avoided such. The court may weigh all the aspect of the case and the circumstances that unraveled and make an informed determination ife the defendant was fully responsible for all the damages caused to the plaintiffs or whether she was partially responsible due to her negligent acts. Loss causation is an aspect that the court and the jury will look into because most of the victims of this tragedy may not have direct link with Zarine who in this case may be the defendant. Additionally, Jack was directly linked to the tragic scene. The court must therefore, strike a balance between matters of law and the moral responsibility of Jack to save the child who was unaware of the risk she was when running on the road.
Conclusion
The degree of negligence must be met on all the three aspects namely the duty of care, breach of that duty and loss or damage. It is apparent that Zarine was negligent in her actions while its is ttill unclear if the moral good done by Jack would absolve him from the risky actions he undertook to save Sara. He too owed the motorists a duty of care of which he breached. However, in determining the guilt or not guilty verdict, the Court will be invited to exercise caution and restraint to avoid wishing away the moral good thing that he did by saving the child. The law should act as a precedent and should not be used to punish those people whose intentions were good but the result violates the same law. Many peole who ffell victims to this tragedy would not attribute it entirely on Zarine but rather to other activities such as speeding of cars on the road as well as the presence of oil spilt on the road. IF it were not for oil spillage, then Laura’s car would not skid after she pressed emergency brakes. Additionally, if she was driving at a reasonable speed, she could be able to control her car in case of emergency.
References
Burrows, A. S., & Burrows, J. H. (2016). A Shocking Requirement In The Law On Negligence Liability For Psychiatric Illness: liverpool Women’s Hospital Nhs Foundation Trust V Ronayne [2015] Ewca Civ 588. Medical law review, 24(2), 278-285.
Goldberg, J. C., & Zipursky, B. C. (2015). The Supreme Court’s Stealth Retrun to the Common Law of Torts. DePaul L. Rev., 65, 433.
Kelly, K., Schwartz, V. E., & Partlett, D. F. (2015). Prosser, Wade, Schwartz, Kelly, and Partlett’s Torts, Cases and Materials. Foundation Press.
Little, J. W., Lidsky, L. B., O’Connell, S. C., & Lande, R. H. (2014). Torts: Theory and Practice. LexisNexis.
Luntz, H., Hambly, D., Burns, K., Dietrich, J., Foster, N., Grant, G., & Harder, S. (2017). Torts: cases and commentary. LexisNexis Butterworths.
Robbennolt, J. K., & Hans, V. P. (2016). The psychology of tort law. In Advances in Psychology and Law (pp. 249-274). Springer, Cham.
Robbennolt, J. K., & Hans, V. P. (2017). Tort Law and Commonsense Justice: Convergence and Divergence. Ct. Rev., 53, 110.
Ross, H. L. (2017). Settled out of court: The social process of insurance claims adjustments. Routledge.
Stickley, A. P. (2016). Australian torts law. LexisNexis Butterworths.Stimson, C. J. (2016). Hospital Risk Management and the US Legal System: An Introduction to US Medical Malpractice Tort Law. In Risk Management in Medicine (pp. 69-76). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
