How Does Emma Have A Cause Of Action In Negligence Against Scl
Law Assignment
In this essay I shall discuss the case of the Silverline Construction Ltd (SCL) v Emma. Which is an event, which took place on the school premises. The event happened ‘shortly after completion when several roof tile fell and smashed on the ground in front of the victim. This resulted in injuring her face and affected her confidence.
The question, which is being asked is whether 'Emma have a cause of action in negligence against SCL'. Using common law, the claimant is owed duty of care, but we also need to consider if the duty was breached will depend if the roof tiles was due to the defendant's negligence. If SCL were found negligent Emma would be able to make a claim against them.
To identify whether Emma is really owed …show more content…
An important question, which we have to analyse, 'is what caused the roof tiles to fall from the roof?'. We can use a previous case Bolam v Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 583, to help identify this using the 'Bolam Test'. It will help us clarify whether Emma has acted reasonably or she has breached the duty. The falling roof tile was not be foreseeable since SCL would not of been able to predict an event like this, since it is a new built school and nothing of this kind would have been foreseeable. Meaning SCL would not of been negligent because it is impossible to foresee such event and the probable …show more content…
Nonetheless we also need to consider the possibility of the Emma's injury should of been the manufacturer's fault. Considering the roof tile could of been defected which cause them to fall. Regardless, it is difficult to prove if it was the manufactures negligence. If yes, Emma would be able to make a claim against the manufacturer of the roof tile.
Assuming that SCL was negligent, we would need to evaluate if it was their negligence that caused Emmas facial injuries. We can use the “but for” test (Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428) test to analyse this situation.
If SCL hadn’t been negligent would emma have been injured? But for, the roof tile didn’t fall, Emma would not of been injured, however it is difficult to deduce if SCL were negligent regarding the roof tile. Moreover, SCL have all of the quality control and check, and then SCL would not have caused Emma’s injuries.
The losses that Emma would be able to claim if SCL are found negligent are, she can claim for her facial injuries and her psychiatric injuries because she was unable to complete her work for 6 month as well as she could not leave the house for 'several weeks'. Emma might be able to get some compensation since she hasn't been able to work and it was difficult for her to leave her
In this essay I shall discuss the case of the Silverline Construction Ltd (SCL) v Emma. Which is an event, which took place on the school premises. The event happened ‘shortly after completion when several roof tile fell and smashed on the ground in front of the victim. This resulted in injuring her face and affected her confidence.
The question, which is being asked is whether 'Emma have a cause of action in negligence against SCL'. Using common law, the claimant is owed duty of care, but we also need to consider if the duty was breached will depend if the roof tiles was due to the defendant's negligence. If SCL were found negligent Emma would be able to make a claim against them.
To identify whether Emma is really owed …show more content…
An important question, which we have to analyse, 'is what caused the roof tiles to fall from the roof?'. We can use a previous case Bolam v Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 583, to help identify this using the 'Bolam Test'. It will help us clarify whether Emma has acted reasonably or she has breached the duty. The falling roof tile was not be foreseeable since SCL would not of been able to predict an event like this, since it is a new built school and nothing of this kind would have been foreseeable. Meaning SCL would not of been negligent because it is impossible to foresee such event and the probable …show more content…
Nonetheless we also need to consider the possibility of the Emma's injury should of been the manufacturer's fault. Considering the roof tile could of been defected which cause them to fall. Regardless, it is difficult to prove if it was the manufactures negligence. If yes, Emma would be able to make a claim against the manufacturer of the roof tile.
Assuming that SCL was negligent, we would need to evaluate if it was their negligence that caused Emmas facial injuries. We can use the “but for” test (Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428) test to analyse this situation.
If SCL hadn’t been negligent would emma have been injured? But for, the roof tile didn’t fall, Emma would not of been injured, however it is difficult to deduce if SCL were negligent regarding the roof tile. Moreover, SCL have all of the quality control and check, and then SCL would not have caused Emma’s injuries.
The losses that Emma would be able to claim if SCL are found negligent are, she can claim for her facial injuries and her psychiatric injuries because she was unable to complete her work for 6 month as well as she could not leave the house for 'several weeks'. Emma might be able to get some compensation since she hasn't been able to work and it was difficult for her to leave her