Friday, February 28, 2020

Law of Tort Master Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Law of Tort Master - Case Study Example Stevenson (1932). It is well established that an employers owes a duty of care to his employee. In a negligence action, the employee will have to show that the employer's conduct fell below the standard that could be expected of reasonable employer. Because of the indirect relationship between Harry's wife and the three companies, the neighbour test should be considered. The courts will consider the interests of the victims whilst being fair to the said negligent parties. This brings in the question of sufficient relationship of proximity between the plaintiff and the defendant. 1 Proximity', does not mean physical. It is based on reasonable foreasibility. For example in Donoghue V Stevenson (1932). P's friend purchased a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by D and gave it to P. P drank most of the bottle but then noticed the decomposed remains of a snail in the bottom of the bottle. P subsequently became ill and sued D in negligence. D's defence was that he did not owe a duty of care to P because there was not contract between D and P. (Purchaser was P's friend) It was held that a contractual link should no longer be the unliquidated - damages determined by the court and previously not agreed by parties test for determining whether or not a duty of cares was owed. The House of Lords stated that a duty of care is owed to any person who we can reasonably foresee will be injured by our acts or omissions. The court described such persons as 'neighbours'. It was held that D could reasonably foresee that somebody apart from the original purchaser may consume his product and therefore P was held liable. 2 In the same argument, Betty could claim that despite not loving a contractual link with the three companies, they are liable for her injury. The plaintiff must show that as a result of breach of duty, she has suffered some damage: a) The damage must be caused to a substantial extent by the defendant's conduct. b) The damage must be sufficiently closely related to the negligent act, it must not be too remote. c) In most cases, the damage must be either physical injury to the plaintiff's person or property or economic loss consequential upon. The said breached duty of care by the three companies to Betty Bloke is arising due to their relationship with her husband, Harry. Harry worked for the three companies in a period of 35 years. He was employed by the companies. This implies there was a contract of employment between the companies and Harry Bloke, either expressly or otherwise. The contract of employment is a contract of service and not for services. Under a contract of service, a person places his/ her labour at the disposal of another and thus the relationship is constituted of employer and employee e.g. in the case of a chauffeur. In contract for services, the relationship is that of employer and independent contractor e.g. in the case of a taxi - driver. This distinction is important to determine general liability of torts within employment. (Dobson, P and Schnithoff, 1991). The employment protection (consolidation) Act 1978, (E.P.C 1978) S. 153 (1)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.