Davies v swan motor co

1. The first question that needs to be asked is does Miguel have knowledge when it comes to choosing cars? Is he skilled? In the case between Chaudhry v Prabkahar (1989) it was held that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. Reason being, that she depended solely on his advice and the fact that he claimed to be knowledgeable about cars. The case between Lisa and Miguel is similar to that of Prabkahar (1989), though we may not know if Miguel had the proper knowledge of cars he still owed Lisa a duty of care. According to the Hedley Byrne rule, a duty of care is owed if there is a special relationship between the claimant and defendant. A special relationship arises if there is an assumption of responsibility by the defendant (if the defendant knows the claimant is relying on their special skill) and the claimant reasonably relies on the defendant's statement. Miguel would be responsible for the damages caused as Lisa took his word.

2. In this scenario, if Candace were to sue Diana for selling her furniture Diana can use the grounds Agency of necessity. Agency of necessity is only used for emergency purposes. The case between Sachs v Miklos (1948) proved to be an example of someone selling another’s property out of convenience and then pleading agency of necessity, when this is done you would fail as there is no urgency or grounds to which this would work. In order for Diana to be successful she must prove that she had no way of contacting Candace to inform her of the situation, that there was a pressing need for action, that she acted out of good faith and her actions were reasonable and prudent given the circumstances.

3. Using the case between Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), Kevon cannot sue the sports bar for breach of contract because Kathy paid. However, he can sue the manufacturing company for their negligence. It was apparent that the bottle in which the contents came in was hard to distinguish what was inside before it was sold. But, the manufacturers are still entirely responsible for being negligent and should owe the consumer a duty of care.

4. When Kathy placed the called because Kathy- Anne did not respond as she should have she displayed negligence and she breached her care of duty. No reason was given as to why the ambulance could not be provided at the time requested. The response was negligent as similar to that of the case between Kent v Griffiths (2000) and Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [1999]. Not only were they negligent by their actions they also caused Kevon even more damages that could have been avoided. Because, the damages were only discovered three years after the incident Kevon may need to show that the damages were forseeable to be fully compensated. In negligence claims, once the claimant has established that the defendant owes them a duty of care and is in breach of that duty which has caused damage, they must also demonstrate that the damage was not too remote.

5. Firstly, Kevon’s mother Candice is seeking what we call in law terms Retributive Justice which basically is the need to get revenge. Unfortunately for Kedra, she is not aware that the fire was not an accident. As for the fire services, Kedra may not be successful at bringing a case against them. In Capital & Counties v Hampshire (1997) because the fire officers tampered with the sprinklers they increased the damages. Therefore, a duty of care was owed. In this instance, the fire officers did not do anything that could lead to an increase in damages caused, so no duty of care is owed here.

6. According to Tarry v Ashton (1876) where an especially high duty of care is imposed upon a person by law he cannot escape liability for the breach of that duty by employing an independent contractor. Similarly, Stacy- Ann, although she hired Aura who is an independent contractor is still responsible for the damages caused. Reason being, that she lived on the main road, which means that the area is very public. It could have started from the car that ran into her gate, but, she fixed the damages caused. Stacy- Ann owes the man a high duty of care.

7. In Joel v Morison (1834) the defendant was going about his business on his own time, not according to instructions given by his employer. Therefore, he was found entirely responsible for the damages he caused. In this case, Britney decided to visit her friend on her own time. She was not under any specific instructions given by her employer; she freely did what she wanted on her own time. The person held responsible for the damages done to Amelia is, Britney for her negligence.

8. It is impossible for Desiree to sue for a breach of contract as there may be no mutuality of obligation. Desiree is considered to be a casual worker, who is basically an independent contractor providing her services to Byatt. She is merely engaged in a contract of services rather than a contract of employment. According to O’Kelly v Trusthouse forte (1983) it was held that because the applicants were in business on their own account as independent contractors and are not qualified for interim relief they were not employees who worked under contract employment.

9. In this scenario, Crystal L. would have to shoulder the claims brought against her because she was not under the course of employment at the time. In Compton v Mcclure (1975), the employee rushing to work injured another employee at the place of employment. Therefore, this is where space would come in and it would then make the employer vicariously liable. It is established that for an employer to be vicariously liable their employees must be under the course of employment. According to the case between Joel v Morrison (1984) the judge said “If he was going out of his way, against his master's implied commands, when driving on his master's business, he will make his master liable; but if he was going on a frolic of his own, without being at all on his master's business, the master will not be liable.”

10. According to Novus Actus Interveniens and as seen in Baker v TE Hopkins & Son Ltd (1959) , where the new intervening act is that of the claimant, the test is whether the claimant acted reasonably in the circumstances. If the claimant's actions are deemed reasonable the chain of causation remains intact and the defendant is liable for the actions of the claimant. If, however, the claimant's actions are unreasonable in the circumstances the chain of causation is broken and the defendant is not liable for the actions of the claimant. The courts would then test to see if Cynthia’s behavior was reasonable and if she is indeed responsible for the death of Leigh. Another example is Wagner v International Railway (1926)

11. Telesha is partially responsible for her negligent behavior because, firstly, she should not have been crossing at an intersection and secondly she should not have been texting on her phone while trying to cross the road. In, Davies v Swan Motor Co (1949), Bucknill LJ said, "When one is considering the question of contributory negligence, it is not necessary to show that the negligence constituted a breach of duty to the Defendant. It is sufficient to show lack of reasonable care by the Plaintiff for his own safety." Telesha contributed to the damages she received for her negligence. And Allison is also partially responsible for damages too.

12. In this scenario the one responsible for the pain and suffering of Crystal B. would be the negligent driver that hit her. He is responsible because he caused her leg to be broken which made her defenseless and vulnerable. Similarly, in Baker v Willoughby (1970) it was established that the broken leg made baker vulnerable and some form of compensation was required. Although, Novus Actus Interveniens is clear in this case, it would be unfair to Crystal B. after she suffered so much.

13. In this scenario, Jacinda lost all her rights of being a visitor at Latisha’s house. Because she deliberately went somewhere that she should not have been or is “out of bounds” so to speak she caused the injuries upon herself. Latisha is in no way responsible for the acts of Jacinda. Case in point Lewis v Ronald (1909).

14. This is a case of contributory negligence, Devera was drinking all night and Melissa should have been aware of the situation that she was getting herself into. Her negligent act caused her to be partially responsible for the acts committed. According to Owens v Brimmell (1977) The principle was recognized that a passenger can be held to have been contributory negligent if he rides with a driver who he knows has consumer alcohol in such quantity as is likely to impair to a dangerous degree that driver's capacity to drive properly and safely. Both would be responsible for their actions.

15. In this case, similar to that of Nettleship v Weston (1971) Anthony can sue Stephanie, but, he would only be compensated for part of the damages. Firstly, Volenti non fit injuria states that no liability would be given to the person if they are aware of the nature and the extent of the risks involved. Stephanie may use this as a defense, but, the courts will decide that being a learner driver does not exempt you completely. Therefore, she has to meet the same requirements of a standard as a reasonable competent driver.

16. Firstly, COSTAATT would not be held responsible for the damages as there was a sign to let persons know that the ground was slippery. In Staples v West Dorset District Council (1995) it should have been obvious to the person of the dangers involved. Similarly, it should have been obvious that the ground would be slippery when it is wet. As for Charlene and Danielle, Danielle would be liable for the damages Charlene received because she literally pulled her down causing the damage. Charlene would be successful should a law suit arise.

Bibliography

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk

http://casebrief.wikia.com

http://www.lawteacher.net/