Law Case
Facts:
A Case of Cold Pizza
Lee Chambers, the Defendant was driving 10 km over the speed limit while making pizza deliveries using the company van. To avoid hitting a dog, he had incidentally skidded sideways on a patch of ice and crashed into another vehicle. Alice White, the plaintiff who was not wearing a seatbelt at the time had suffered numerous injuries. The Plaintiff had sued Lee Chambers and Vinnie’s Pizza Ltd. for general and special damages along with cost of car repairs, and loss of income.
Issue:
1) Is the defendant liable? 2) Does the defendant owe the plaintiff a duty of care? 3) Did the defendant breach the duty of care? 4) Is the defendant liable for personal injuries, damages, and loss of income?
Argument: Could the injuries be avoided or less serious if the plaintiff had worn a seatbelt? 5) Is the corporate defendant vicariously liable for the tort of the employee defendant?
Law:
The Law of Torts is a resolution to compensate any individual who have suffered any harm or wrongdoing. The tort of negligence is a broad area of law that “involves inadvertent or unintentional careless conduct causing injury or damage to another person or his property.” (Yates, Bereznicki-Korol & Clarke, 2011,p.145). The harm may include physical injury, loss of enjoyment of life or property, loss of earning capacity, and lastly personal or reputational damages. To succeed in any case of negligence, the plaintiff must prove fault on the person or company being sued. There are four elements that must coincide with one another. Primarily, “the court must determine whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff” by using the “reasonable plaintiff foreseeable test” to establish if the incident is likely to occur. ( Yates, Bereznicki-Korol & Clarke, 2011,p.145). Secondly, the court needs to prove if the defendant had violated this duty by using the “reasonable person test.” The reasonable person test demonstrates whether the
A Case of Cold Pizza
Lee Chambers, the Defendant was driving 10 km over the speed limit while making pizza deliveries using the company van. To avoid hitting a dog, he had incidentally skidded sideways on a patch of ice and crashed into another vehicle. Alice White, the plaintiff who was not wearing a seatbelt at the time had suffered numerous injuries. The Plaintiff had sued Lee Chambers and Vinnie’s Pizza Ltd. for general and special damages along with cost of car repairs, and loss of income.
Issue:
1) Is the defendant liable? 2) Does the defendant owe the plaintiff a duty of care? 3) Did the defendant breach the duty of care? 4) Is the defendant liable for personal injuries, damages, and loss of income?
Argument: Could the injuries be avoided or less serious if the plaintiff had worn a seatbelt? 5) Is the corporate defendant vicariously liable for the tort of the employee defendant?
Law:
The Law of Torts is a resolution to compensate any individual who have suffered any harm or wrongdoing. The tort of negligence is a broad area of law that “involves inadvertent or unintentional careless conduct causing injury or damage to another person or his property.” (Yates, Bereznicki-Korol & Clarke, 2011,p.145). The harm may include physical injury, loss of enjoyment of life or property, loss of earning capacity, and lastly personal or reputational damages. To succeed in any case of negligence, the plaintiff must prove fault on the person or company being sued. There are four elements that must coincide with one another. Primarily, “the court must determine whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff” by using the “reasonable plaintiff foreseeable test” to establish if the incident is likely to occur. ( Yates, Bereznicki-Korol & Clarke, 2011,p.145). Secondly, the court needs to prove if the defendant had violated this duty by using the “reasonable person test.” The reasonable person test demonstrates whether the