BL- Group Presentation, Assignments of Business and Labour Law

Download BL- Group Presentation and more Assignments Business and Labour Law in PDF only on Docsity!

CHAPTER 14

LAW OF TORTS

GROUP 03 - BL-T223WSB-

Presentation

 - Question Outline - Question - Question - Question - Question 

• Question
• Question - Question - Question
  • Question

The primary objective of the law of tort is to provide legal remedies and compensation to individuals who have suffered harm due to the wrongful actions or omissions of others.

Negligence Intentional torts Strict liability

Provide justice Deter wrongdoing Resolve disputes outside of contractual relationships

Tort law covers various situations :

Purpose :

Food Poisoning Sue the restaurant for negligence or breachof warranty under the law of tort

Duty of Care: The defendant must owe a legal duty of care to the plaintiff.

This means that the defendant has a responsibility to act reasonably and

avoid causing harm to others.

Breach of Duty: The defendant have breached their duty of care. This occurs

when the defendant fails to meet the standard of care expected in the given

situation. It involves a failure to act with the level of care that a reasonable

person would exercise under similar circumstances.

Causation: There must be a causal connection between the defendant's

breach of duty and the harm suffered by the plaintiff. This involves

demonstrating that the defendant's actions or omissions directly caused the

plaintiff's injuries or damages.

Damages: The plaintiff must have suffered actual harm or damages as a

result of the defendant's breach of duty. This can include physical injuries,

emotional distress, financial losses, or other measurable harms.

In the duty of care rule, the defendant has a responsibility to act reasonably and avoid causing harm to others.

Qi Yi must know that not all of his customers can read Mandarin (duty of care).

But, the sign only included Mandarin and not the Simplified Chinese (causation), which cannot be read by the nephew Jerry, leading to the accident and his injury (damage).

As a consequence, Qi Yi has breached the duty of care he owes Jerry.

(a) Advise Qi Yi whether he has breached the duty of care he owes his customers.

Whether Qi Yi owes her a duty of care may depend on an analysis of the applicable laws and legal precedents due to not knowing that his action intentionally caused a psychological damage suffering.

(b) Jerry’s grandmother witnesses the accident and,

herself, suffers psychological damage. Does Qi Yi

owe her a duty of care?

This reluctance is due to challenges in establishing foreseeability, causation, and concerns about the potential flood of claims and burden on the legal system.

Mention that psychological injuries may involve various factors and individual circumstances, making it challenging to establish causation

Policy considerations and the incremental development of the law also play a role in the courts' hesitation.

The recognition of a duty of care for psychological harm is evolving in some jurisdictions, especially in cases involving close relationships or special vulnerability.

THE FIRST ELEMENT THAT A PLAINTIFF MUST PROVE IS THAT THE DEFENDANT OWED THE PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE. LORD ATKIN, IN DONOGHUE V STEVENSON [14.70], USED, FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE CONCEPT OF THE “NEIGHBOR” AS A GENERAL LIMITING PRINCIPLE. WHO, ACCORDING TO LORD ATKIN, IS OUR NEIGHBOR, AT LEAST ACCORDING TO LAW? WHAT SPECIFIC DUTY OF CARE WAS OWED BY A MANUFACTURER TO A CONSUMER?

QUESTION 05

Group 3

SUMMARY

May Donoghue and her friend went to the Wellmeadow Café in Paisley. Her friend ordered and paid for an “ice-cream drink” (ginger beer and ice cream). May Donoghue drank some of the contents and her friend lifted the bottle to pour the remainder of the ginger beer into the glass. The remains of a decomposed snail dropped out of the bottle into the glass. May Donoghue later complained of stomach pain and her doctor diagnosed her as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of nervous shock.

GINGER BEER

Her friend ordered and paid for an “ice-cream drink” The ginger beer contained a decomposed snail

MAY DONOGHUE

AND HER FRIEND

They visited Wellmeadow Café in Paisley

HAVE HEALTHY

ISSUE

May experience stomach pain and was diagnosed with gastroenteritis and nervous shock.

ISSUE

Group 3

CONCLUSION

David Stevenson owed a duty of care to May Donoghue in the circumstances of the case, and he breached that duty by manufacturing ginger beer that contained a decomposed snail. Therefore, May Donoghue is entitled to compensation for the harm she suffered as a result of David Stevenson's negligence

The High Court in Annetts [14.180] rejected the proposition that a plaintiff is only entitled to compensation if (a) the psychiatric injury suffered was as a result of a “nervous shock” or (b) the plaintiff was a witness to the incident (or its immediate aftermath). Do you agree with the decision? Can you appreciate why Mrs Tame failed and the Annetts’ succeeded?

Group 3

QUESTION 9