Basic Principles of Tort Supported by Case Law.
Introduction
This essay is an attempt to advise Changwa on the area of law under which he can bring an action in view of the facts given in the question. The essay will also attempt to advise Changwa with respect to the person against whom such action can be brought. In order to achieve this end, the essay will pay particular attention to the salient elements he has to establish in the area of law identified, if at all he is to succed in his claim. The essay will conclude by looking at the likely difficulties Changwa may encounter in succeeding in his claim in the event that he was to bring an action. The advice will be with the aid of decided cases where necessary.
Area of Law and the Potential Defendant.
In view of the facts given in this case, the name of the area of law under which Changwa can bring an action is in the tort of negligence. Accordingly, he must bring this action firstly against the pub manager for the cockroach found in the food. Secondly, the action must be brought against the manufacturers of the red wine. This is so because the pub manager is merely the retailer with no opportunity to temper with the contents of the red wine.
The law of negligence dates back as far as 1856 when Lord Baron Alderson in Blyth v Birmingham Water Works Company gave a simple and precise definition of what constitutes negligence in the following terms; Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. It follows therefore that negligence consists of either an act or omission on the part of the defendant.
It is trite law that the tort of negligence has three essential elements, which any claimant must prove in order to succeed in his action against the defendant. These three elements are existence of duty of care owed to the claimant, breach of such duty of care by the defendant and
This essay is an attempt to advise Changwa on the area of law under which he can bring an action in view of the facts given in the question. The essay will also attempt to advise Changwa with respect to the person against whom such action can be brought. In order to achieve this end, the essay will pay particular attention to the salient elements he has to establish in the area of law identified, if at all he is to succed in his claim. The essay will conclude by looking at the likely difficulties Changwa may encounter in succeeding in his claim in the event that he was to bring an action. The advice will be with the aid of decided cases where necessary.
Area of Law and the Potential Defendant.
In view of the facts given in this case, the name of the area of law under which Changwa can bring an action is in the tort of negligence. Accordingly, he must bring this action firstly against the pub manager for the cockroach found in the food. Secondly, the action must be brought against the manufacturers of the red wine. This is so because the pub manager is merely the retailer with no opportunity to temper with the contents of the red wine.
The law of negligence dates back as far as 1856 when Lord Baron Alderson in Blyth v Birmingham Water Works Company gave a simple and precise definition of what constitutes negligence in the following terms; Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. It follows therefore that negligence consists of either an act or omission on the part of the defendant.
It is trite law that the tort of negligence has three essential elements, which any claimant must prove in order to succeed in his action against the defendant. These three elements are existence of duty of care owed to the claimant, breach of such duty of care by the defendant and
Bibliography: Clerk and Lindsell. 2003. Law of Tort, 16th ed Cooke, J Rogers, W. 1994. Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, 13th ed. London: Sweet and Maxwell. Smith and Keenan