Question 1 2
(i) Jane, a youth worker, confiscates a flick knife from a member of her youth club and gives it to her supervisor 2
(ii) Tony, an antique dealer, displays an old military knife with a spring opening device in his shop window with a price ticket attached to it. 2
(iii) Fola buys an unopened box of kitchen utensils from a car boot sale. Without examining the contents closely she donates the box to a charity shop. The box is found to contain a flick knife. 3
Critically analyze the following case and say whether or not you think that the plaintiff will succeed under the tort of negligence: 5
(i) Jane, a youth worker, confiscates a flick knife from a member of her youth club and gives …show more content…
In this case, Fola will not be held liable as she did not know that the packed box contains a flick knife. It has also been implied that she didn’t have any intention to sell or hire the flicker knife because she was unknown about the fact of its existence. The second thing which is also observed here is that the box was donated by her in a charity shop which means that she did not have any intention to sell or offer to sell or representing or keeping in possession for the reason of selling or offering the flicker knife, therefore, she would be liable under the provisions of Restriction of offensive Weapons Act 1959 (Cps Gov UK, …show more content…
It means that a rational person work out an activity without thinking about the injury of another person. As per tort, it is mistake which is legal in nature and it is tolerated by one person at the hand of other and negligence can be said as a kind of tort. Because of negligence, several types of losses or damages have been incurred to a person due to the act of another rather there is no contractual compulsion between the parties.
In the case of Donoghue vs. Stevenson, the tort of negligence law was firstly observed in 1932. In the given case, it was held by the House of Lords that if some person has experienced loss or damage with the act of another person then the suffered person can file a suit against that person.
In the provided case study, there was a batsman called John and was playing in the ground of club. The ball was hit so hard that the ball crossed the boundary wall of the ground and hit Mr. Smith on his head when he was standing out of his door. Mr. Smith sued the Club for the negligence of this activity because the ball hit him very nastily on his head. The Club stated that the ball had gone out of the boundary wall only three times in the last three years (Conaghan and Mansell,