tort notes
Issues Identified:
1. Whether William has an action in common negligence against Edmund.
2. Whether Sam has action in rescuer’s duty against Edmund
3. Whether William has an action in vicarious liability against TCS
4. Whether Sam has an action in vicarious liability against TCS
Pleadings:
1. William v Edmund
A. Duty of care
Foreseeability – there will be accidents if bus isn’t checked properly and if Edmund doesn’t watch the road. Fair just reasonable. Proximity – safety of William depended on Edmunds careful driving
B. Breach of duty – Edmund did not check the bus thoroughly before taking the bus out and did not watch the road ahead of him whilst driving
C. Causation: but for Edmund driving safely, watching the road and checking the bus thoroughly, Willie would not have sustained the injuries.
D. Remoteness: Applying the reasonable foreseeability test, the kind of harm was a foreseeable consequence of Edmund’s careless driving and the manner of was also a foreseeable consequence of Edmund’s failure to identify the loose hinges on the door. While it may be common practice for drivers to turn on the radio, but they should at least stop at the side or wait for a red light to tune their radio on a bus filled with little kids. Especially since the road may be slippery since the storm drain was filled with water.
2. Sam v Edmund
Wagner v International Railway - Edmund’s careless driving and failure to maintain the bus caused the traffic accident and created a dangerous situation that invited rescue for William
Potential Defence: Contributory negligence - Eckert v. Long Island R. R. Co, Baker v TE Hopkins & Son Ltd - am did not do unreasonably endanger himself because the suddenness of William being thrown off the bus had created a situation in which Sam had instinctively done what every reasonable rescuer would have done
3.William v. TCS 4. Sam v. TCS (These two claims can be analysed within the same frame)
A. employer-employee relationship
1.
1. Whether William has an action in common negligence against Edmund.
2. Whether Sam has action in rescuer’s duty against Edmund
3. Whether William has an action in vicarious liability against TCS
4. Whether Sam has an action in vicarious liability against TCS
Pleadings:
1. William v Edmund
A. Duty of care
Foreseeability – there will be accidents if bus isn’t checked properly and if Edmund doesn’t watch the road. Fair just reasonable. Proximity – safety of William depended on Edmunds careful driving
B. Breach of duty – Edmund did not check the bus thoroughly before taking the bus out and did not watch the road ahead of him whilst driving
C. Causation: but for Edmund driving safely, watching the road and checking the bus thoroughly, Willie would not have sustained the injuries.
D. Remoteness: Applying the reasonable foreseeability test, the kind of harm was a foreseeable consequence of Edmund’s careless driving and the manner of was also a foreseeable consequence of Edmund’s failure to identify the loose hinges on the door. While it may be common practice for drivers to turn on the radio, but they should at least stop at the side or wait for a red light to tune their radio on a bus filled with little kids. Especially since the road may be slippery since the storm drain was filled with water.
2. Sam v Edmund
Wagner v International Railway - Edmund’s careless driving and failure to maintain the bus caused the traffic accident and created a dangerous situation that invited rescue for William
Potential Defence: Contributory negligence - Eckert v. Long Island R. R. Co, Baker v TE Hopkins & Son Ltd - am did not do unreasonably endanger himself because the suddenness of William being thrown off the bus had created a situation in which Sam had instinctively done what every reasonable rescuer would have done
3.William v. TCS 4. Sam v. TCS (These two claims can be analysed within the same frame)
A. employer-employee relationship
1.