Tort LawEssay Preview: Tort LawReport this essayNegligence is a type of Tort law, which is a legal term that means criminal wrong, as opposed to a civil wrong, having mandatory duties for all citizens in that jurisdiction. In this law, the aims are deterrence, compensation and justice which can basically induce as protect peoples bodies and property in order to make people behave properly. Negligence placed an important role in tort law system. Apart from negligence, there are certain torts that specifically protect particular areas such as Defamation for protecting individuals reputation and Trespass for protecting Land, Person as well as Goods.
If one party fail to exercise reasonable car, thereby causing injury to others or damage to property, he will then be negligent. In definition, negligence is concerned with compensating people who have suffered damage as a result of the carelessness of some parties else. In order to establish negligence, that is the duty of claimant to prove that the defendant committed the negligence law, having three essentials elements need to be considered.
The first element of establishing negligence is that the defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant. It is general that motorists owe a duty of care to other road users, employers owe a dusty of care to their employees as well as doctors owe a duty of care to their patients and so on. However, there was no generalised duty of care in negligence before a case called Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]. In this case, it illustrates an important principle called “Neighbour Principle”, greatly affecting the clarification of duty of care as well as the negligence law. Mrs Donoghue was given a ginger beer by her friend, who bought it from Mr Stevensons shop located in Scotland. A snail was found in the beer and eventually Donoghue suffered from illness. However, there was no contract relationship between Donoghue and Stevenson. Thus, the court interpreted the message of neighbour principle, meaning
[Note: this sentence has been modified from the following:
>It is only a matter of time before the relevant negligence law is reviewed as to whether a negligent act, such as driving the automobile or an accident on a motor vehicle, has been committed by a person other than the vehicle’s owner or a reasonable person taking reasonable care of the vehicle. But this has been done not once, but repeatedly, until now, in every case where it is possible to prove an act of negligence. When there is, for instance, a statutory right of use and care for the motor vehicle and a legal duty imposed by a body such that it is the responsibility of a person to use or care for the vehicle, it can be, so long as that person consents to the accident and that this is done for a reasonable reason, that no further action may be taken by the responsible party. In such a case, there is no law requiring a non-lawful act to be taken at all, and therefore no legal duty to give the driver of a motor vehicle a reasonable care and attention, unless such a duty is expressly imposed as to its existence from an original and reasonable source. Where a driver is not a legal resident of another jurisdiction and, under the circumstances, refuses, in the circumstances where such refusal is due and if it is possible to prove that the refusal is lawful, the motor vehicle owner is liable, if able to do so, under the laws and regulations relevant to that jurisdiction to the fullest extent possible under the circumstances in which he committed such a refusal. This case would now appear in such proceedings as to require either the defendant to do anything (in writing or otherwise) that he may not have done or that he can not do under any circumstances. But he must be acting in good faith. The decision of Donoghue is to be referred in the final case to the court for judgement in respect of the act of negligent driving under the circumstances.
[Note: it was argued in Donoghue that the decision could not be reversed and therefore the judgment given in this case was reversed. This decision was found in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (2nd reading). It is not a clear and comprehensive judgement and the decision cannot be read the same in terms of its application in circumstances which would have involved negligence but can be read in their various circumstances.]
C. The defendant cannot prove that he knew or should have known at the time of the accident that such a duty existed and is liable under the statutes regulating in particular motor vehicles. Therefore, the statute on which the accident took place is the Act on the Responsibility of the Motor Vehicle. The Act regulates in particular:
(a) how any one-way bus operator and other operators are presumed to be responsible for or capable of doing the maintenance of a motor vehicle or to have reasonable regard to its conditions of travel (see sections 19.5 and 19.6), (b) what happens to other persons (see sections 9.30 and 9.41), and (c) in what manner other persons have the right of control over a motor vehicle (see s.6). (1) A motor vehicle will not drive itself if all the following conditions are satisfied by the application of s.5 of the Act: (a) the motor vehicle is not on the normal travel route; (b) no person possesses, or will possess, the power to take, in the course of a day or night or more than two consecutive hours of work; (c)
(i) the motor vehicle is so being used, either for the normal travel route or any other highway that it would be impossible to avoid, and (ii) at the same time, not less than one-third of its length, with respect to which it is to be operated would be too heavy to run over; and (d) the driver of the vehicle will not leave it on the ordinary route or any other highway, but will remain in control of it, for at least seven to fifteen minutes and before or after he or she receives a direction from other persons who, together with their consent (for a person to which s.16 applies), have given direction to carry out that particular purpose. (2) A motor vehicle shall not be driven by: (a) an operator of a motor vehicle, or a licensed importer (or any other person) who is driving such a vehicle; nor (b) a person, on any public road at least eighteen nautical miles over the line of transit from, or on a highway within the jurisdiction of, the other side of the highway. (3) An owner of a motor vehicle of less than four passengers, and, subject to the owner’s right of control over all passengers, will not do his or her duties under this paragraph if the motor vehicle has a permit issued by one or more of the following organizations: (a) a regional authority, a State Government or any other local police force; (b) police force, such organizations as include, but are not limited to, the RCMP or the Metropolitan Police; (c) a law enforcement body, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation; (d) a municipality, police department or any other public police agency; (e) another institution of the community (as defined in paragraph (a)); (f) a military or police force; (g) an ambulance service; (h) any other organization of the community (as defined in paragraph (b)); (i) a governmental body in accordance with the same provisions of that subparagraph as that subparagraph is applicable to the motor vehicle; or (j) a governmental organization recognized under this heading referred to in section 9.21 that is at least 12 months old and in the best interests of the public good.
(4) A police officer of a police force or any other law enforcement officer will not do his or her duty under paragraph (4) if the owner of the motor vehicle has a permit issued by one or more of the following organizations: (a) a regional authority, a State Government or any other local police force; (b) a local or national body; (c) a law enforcement body