Negligence Business Activities Assignment Help | Law Negligence Assignment Help
Negligence Business Activities Assignment Help Following may be considered as the difference between he liability under law of tort and law of contract:
- The rights breached under law of tort is right in rem and the right breached under the law of contract is that of right in personam.
- The reason for the breach is essential under the law of tort but not under the law of contract
- The elements essential to law of tort are causation, remoteness and neighbour principle whereas the law of contract considers the offer, acceptance, types of terms and other such factors.
- The damages are decided by the courts under the law of tort whereas the damages are decided based on the consideration involved under a contract.
- The capacity of the parties involved is irrelevant under the law of tort whereas same is not the case under the law of contract. [Richards (2006)]
Explain the nature of liability in negligence
The House of Lords confirm that an act of negligence is considered to be a tort. In such a situation, the plaintiff is allowed to initiate a civil action for the injury or loss so suffered by the actions undertaken by the respondent. Accordingly the requirement of the plaintiff to establish the loss was waived off as opposed to the contractual liability. This change came into existence after the case of Donoghue v Stevenson wherein there was no contractual relationship between the parties. The case illustrated the situation wherein the ginger beer that was contaminated by the snail was not purchased by her but her friend. She however consumed the same and had stomach infection and psychological loss in terms of shock. [Nel (2004)]
Lord Atkin in the judgement established a neighbour’s principle. Neighbour principle establishes a duty of care not only for parties directly involved under a tort but also the relevant indirect parties that are capacitate to be as involved. It is provided that when a product is brought into a market the same is capable of being consumed by the people around the purchaser even if not direct purchase has been made. Thereby, the manufacturers are required to take the necessary steps towards the protection of the direct and indirect party under the influence of the product. Lord Atkin expressly classified the neighbour as a person that is closely and directly affected by the act in question when considering such acts and omissions. The same has been supported under the case of Roberts v Ramsbottom  QBD and Roe v Minister of Health  CA. [Richards (2006)]
Explain how a business can be vicariously liable
To establish vicarious liability a relationship of employment shall exist between the parties such that the employer would be responsible for the civil wrongs so committed by the employees against the third parties. The same shall be held during the course of employment. It is considered under the scope of employment:
- When expressly or impliedly asked by the employer
- The same is illegal that is authorised
- The same is incidental in nature.
Negligence Business Activities Assignment Help | Law Negligence Assignment Help
According to the recent Supreme Court ruling the objective to specify the vicarious liability is that the as long it is fair, just and reasonable the same is to be borne by the defendant. The defendants may get themselves insured against such possible wrongs. The court derives the authority to decide whether the same is vicarious in nature.. Accordingly the employer would be liable when the it has a likely means to compensate and may have the insurance against the liability. It also includes when the action is performed on the behalf of employer, it is the primary activity of the employer, or the employee was under the direct control of the employer. The same has been supported in the cases of Watt v Hertfordshire PP  CA and Wells v Cooper  CA [Cooke (2007)]
The rules of vicarious liability is further applicable under the principal-agent relationship, partnership and the master-servant relationship. The same rules apply to such relationships for the proximity of the duties so delegated among the parties. Under the principal-agent relationship the vicarious liability may be derived because the principal has delegated the authority to perform certain functions on behalf of the principal. Therefore, the principal would be liable for the actions of the agent. The same goes for partnership as the partners work for each other’s interest and hence liable for each others actions as they share the profits and losses of the decisions so made by them. The servant is said to be working for the master for themost part of the day and hence is considered as a person working in the master’s interest.
Be able to apply principles of liability in negligence in business situations.
Apply the elements of the tort of negligence and defences in different business situations
- According to the situations presented it is derived that the claim may be made by Mark. This is because the holiday park had a pre-existing duty as an occupier to safeguard the interests of the visitors both permanent and temporary. However, Mark had voluntarily jumped into the pool making himself exposed to the risks at the premises. This is so because trespassers are equally capable of being damage thereby no distinction may be made between visitors and the trespassers. Therefore, the park would not be liable in full proportions as it has strong defence for fixing up the fences to obstruct the trespassers ad not having such an incident before this.
- In the given situation it is derived that the person should not be swimming in the pool at the council. Thereby, as an occupier it was the duty of the council to state the conditions and circumstances expressly to the visitors and non-visitors by putting up a sign. Thereby, by not doing so the council may be liable towards the damages so caused to the trespassers. This is so because trespassers are equally capable of being damage thereby no distinction may be made between visitors and the trespassers.[Giliker (2010)]
- It maybe concluded that the responsibility in the present cases is that of the council and the park as described under the Occupiers Liability Act. As prescribed under the case of Newman & others v United Kingdom Medical Research Council (1996) CA and Paris v Stepney BC  HL.[Pratt (2000)]
Apply the elements of vicarious liability in given business situations
In the present situation, the owner of the vintage bus was Mrs. Williams who was also the owner of the Museum of Vintage Vehicles. Mrs. Williams had asked her friend to take the vintage bus for the vintage bus rally. On the way to the rally, the friend drove negligently and damaged the car. It is required to establish the responsibility for the damage so caused. Although Mrs. Williams owned the bus, it wasn’t being driven by her at the time. As the friend was driving, it was her duty to maintain the safety of the people both inside and outside the car. Thereby, the responsibility at the time of driving is that of the friend for being the one able to control the functioning of the car. However, Mrs Williams would be the principal in the present case delegating the duty of driving the bus to the rally to her agent who is her friend. Therefore, Mrs. Williams would be vicariously liable towards her agent. (1998) CA[Vettori (2007)]
It is concluded that the contract is required to be formed on the basis of elements such as offer, counter offer, acceptance, capacity, consideration and intention. Every element is of equal importance and may render a contract void if not followed or included. The different types of terms have different effects on the types of contract and the same has been analysed in the given assignment. The knowledge so gained has been applied towards solving the case studies. Furthermore, the difference between liabilities different in tort as well as the contracts is discussed. The concept of tort of negligence and vicarious liability has also been anlaysed and applied towards the case studies.
Meyer, L. (2010). Non-performance and remedies under international contract law principles and Indian contract law. Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang.
- Richards, P. (2006). Law of contract. Harlow, England: Pearson Longman.
- Collins, H. (2008). Standard contract terms in Europe. Alphen Aan Den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
- Vettori, S. (2007). The employment contract and the changed world of work. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Pub.
- Giliker, P. (2010). Vicarious liability in tort. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Order Now