Charles Sturt University
Assessment task 2
Presented to: Vipulanandam Wijayaratnam
Presented by: Mahmud Shourov
Student ID: 11504809
Answer to question no.1
After unforeseeably hitting drunk Mary and injury her (breaking her leg), is Bob liable for Mary’s injury according to Torts? Can Sam sue Tom because he was stuck in traffic for the accident? Law
When a party caused physical injury to some as long as the harm was foreseeable, a defendant is liable for all types harm suffered by a plaintiff, including those that were not foreseeable. This is known as the ‘Egg-shell skull’ rules. In Donoghue v Stevenson  UKHL 100. In which the Donoghue drank ginger beer and found snail in the bottle and caused her stomach pain and her doctor diagnosed her as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock. So, Stevenson is liable for her physical injury. In the case, Bob was driving without a care because he was changing a CD in his car. So, there is contributory negligence because there is Duty of care and Breach of duty. The likelihood and seriousness is high because He wasn’t watching the road while driving and Mary crossed the road without looking for traffic. So there is unexpected and freak hazard. Practicability of precautions. (Paris v Stepney Borough Council) and (Latimer v. AEC Ltd 1953). Bob caused damage to Mary by breaking her legs directly (no remoteness). For this personal physical injury Bob owes Mary’s pecuniary damages. This he must pay if Mary sues Bob in court. When financial loss occurs there must be reasonably foreseeable by a reasonable person. (Overseas Tankship (UK/Ltd) v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd). In which the council found that even though the crew were careless and breached their duty of care, the resulting extensive damage by fire was not foreseeable by a reasonable person. In the case, Tom (electrician) couldn’t get to fix Sam’s refrigerators and caused Sam $5000 worth financial loss because of traffic accident. There is no negligence because Tom didn’t have any chance to take reasonable care because of the accident. And there is no reasonable foreseeability (Bolton v. Stone  AC 850,  1 All ER 1078) which can occur likelihood, seriousness etc. Tom not directly involves for the accident it was remoteness; beside Tom had no vicarious liability because Tom is not an employee of Sam’s restaurant. Application
Given that it was of key importance to Bob, It’s likely that Bob has to pay for all Mary’s medical expenses, rehabilitation expenses etc. regardless of Mary being drunk and crossed the road without looking for traffic. It is foreseeable in some extend because physical injury. So Mary can sue Bob for her pecuniary damages under ‘Egg-shell skull’ rules in court. And for Sam case, there was no negligence because of the remoteness traffic accident and reasonably foreseeability by a reasonable person and not being an employee of Sam’s restaurant Sam can’t sue Tom for his financial loss. Conclusion
Bob will be liable to Mary for breaking her legs. However Mary’s damages will be reduced because of her contributory negligence. And tom will not be liable to Sam for his financial loss. Because there was no rational foreseeability on conduct duty of care therefore no negligence.
Answer to question no.2 a
Given that Frank has not sold the laptops to Sam under 20th September day’s offer, was there a breach of contract and, if so, under which rules? Is acceptance of offer in 25th September effective in document of contract? Law
Where a party to a contract has breached a term, it is important to determine whether to Contract is valid and is the contract is revokable from defendant perspective. In case, (Merritt v Merritt  1WCR 1211) the defendant refused to transfer the house to plaintiff but since the agreement was not domestic so it automatically create legal relationship and valid contract. In the case, Frank offers Sam to...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document