Negligence

Negligence Advice Case
According to the law of negligence a neighbor is a person that should take reasonable care to avoid acts that can be reasonably foreseen. This can also be seen in the Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) case, “On the 26 August, 1928 Donoghue and a friend were at a café in Glasgow. Donoghue's companion ordered and paid for a bottle of ginger beer for Donoghue. The ginger beer was in an opaque bottle. Donoghue drank some of the contents and her friend lifted the bottle to pour the remainder of the ginger beer into the tumbler. The remains of a snail in a state of decomposition dropped out of the bottle into the tumbler. Donoghue later complained of stomach pain and her doctor diagnosed her as having gastroenteritis and being in
Donoghue sued Stevenson, the manufacturer of the drink, for negligence.”(Donoghue v Stevenson, [1932] AC 562) This case set the precedent for future negligent cases and can be applied to this case, in which David had a duty of care towards Daniel as he was driving the car and should have reasonably foreseen the accident and taken appropriate care towards you as the driver. In the Donoghue case Stevenson had a duty of care towards its customers in which the drink would be safe. David breached this duty of care by recklessly driving and failed to reach the standard duty of care. In the Donoghue case this element was also broken as Stevenson did not take the standard duty and breached it by having the snail in the drink. As a result of this breach damage was caused to my plaintiff Daniel which means that all the elements have been reached. As my suggestion Daniel will be able to sue David for the following under the law of negligence, general damages, special damages and future economic losses. General damages is defined as “pain, suffering, loss of amenities of life, loss of expectation of life and disfigurement.” Special damages is defined as “monetary compensation for expenditure of doctors, hospital bills, physiotherapy charges and any other services ranging from taxis to healthcare professionals.” And lastly future economic loss is commonly defined as
The report states “Daniel received 4 broken ribs, a broken leg, broken right elbow with a shoulder displacement and a nasty gash to the head.” It is evident that pain, suffering and disfigurement has been a result of David’s reckless driving. A case that precedents this and shows is the Papa v Sullivan Nicolaides case which shows the three elements being breach and all types damages being successfully sought. Papa v Sullivan Nicolaides Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 364 Where the plaintiff patient had a mechanical heart valve – where as a consequence of this the plaintiff had to take anti-coagulant medication, Warfarin, for the rest of her life – where the levels of Warfarin in the blood needed to be monitored to ensure they remained within an appropriate range – her physiologists gave her invalid information which resulted in a stroke where she suffered pain, suffering, hospital bills and an inability to work. Papa successfully sued for general damages, future economic damages and special damages along with a sub set of other damages. Held: Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,201,982.00. Even though these cases are vastly different they relate in the types of damages that can be sought. Daniel has suffered loss of future monetary gains, pain, and suffering and hospital bills. It is clear that David is