It was Bonfire Night (5th November 2008), Damien and Nicolas were out playing in the field next to the university. As it was Bonfire Night, they decided to go buy some fireworks. When returning back to the field they saw a cat and thought it would be funny to scare it with a firework. In doing so they lit a firework and threw it at the cat, but unfortunately it missed the cat and it hit a car parked next to the field. The firework caused the windows of the car to smash, injuring Cindy who was walking by. Cindy was badly injured and later suffered from post traumatic stress. Damien and Nicolas saw the lady and decided to run to the next field. This question concerns Damien's and Nicolas' potential liability towards Cindy, Mandy and Sarah's family in the law of negligence.
[...] III- Causation For this last requirement, this does not pose us any problems; the injury suffered is not too remote a consequence and is in fact and in law caused directly by the defendants' conduct. Consequently, we can advice all three possible claimants that it is possible to establish a primary case in negligence against Damien and Nicolas. The claims will most likely be heard in the County Court or the High Court depending on the sums of money involved. If the claimant is successful, the court will order the defendants, Damien and Nicolas to pay the costs of the hearings and award compensation to the victims or victims' family. [...]
[...] It is clear from the facts that Cindy would definitely not have suffered any injury if Damien and Nicolas were not playing with fireworks. Regarding legal causation, the court will deny recovery if the loss in question is a very unusual result of the defendants' conduct. This principle, settled by The Wagon Mound (1967), provides that only damage which is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of a breach will be recoverable at law. In our case, it is reasonably foreseeable that if there are cars close to the scene where people are playing with fireworks that cars could get damaged and further injure passersby. [...]
[...] In doing so they lit a firework and threw it at the cat, but unfortunately it missed the cat and it hit a car parked next to the field. The firework caused the windows of the car to smash, injuring Cindy who was walking by. Cindy was badly injured and later suffered from post traumatic stress. Damien and Nicolas saw the lady and decided to run to the next field. Later in the evening they decided to let off the rest of their fireworks. [...]
[...] The house then set on fire causing the death of Sarah who was asleep in bed. Discuss any possible liability in negligence This question concerns Damien and Nicolas' potential liability to Cindy, Mandy and Sarah's family in the law of negligence. In order for any claimant to establish negligence and be successful, he/she must prove that the defendant owes the claimant of duty of care, the defendant has acted in breach of that duty and as a result, the claimant has suffered damage which is not too remote a consequence of the defendant's breach. [...]
[...] In these circumstances, it would be fair, just and reasonable for the court to impose a duty of care. We therefore satisfy the first element necessary to establish liability in negligence. We can say that Damien and Nicolas owed a duty of care to Cindy II- The breach of duty The question is: has Damien and Nicolas' conduct Fallen below the standard of care required in all circumstances? According to the case Nettleship v Weston (1971), this standard of care is objective: what would a reasonable person have done in the same circumstances? [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
