Preview

Question 1 a Sydney Tramway Passenger Was Injured in Collision with Another Tram, Which Occurred After the Driver Collapsed at the Controls. the Plaintiff Argued That the Collision Could Have Been Avoided If the Tramway

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1481 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Question 1 a Sydney Tramway Passenger Was Injured in Collision with Another Tram, Which Occurred After the Driver Collapsed at the Controls. the Plaintiff Argued That the Collision Could Have Been Avoided If the Tramway
HA2022 BUSINESS LAW

RESEARCH ASSIGNMENT

TRIMESTER 2, 2012

DUE DATE: - MONDAY 24ST SEPTEMBER 2012

SUBMITTED BY: - ANUP SINGH RAIMAJHI (WMT2060)

Question 1
A Sydney tramway passenger was injured in collision with another tram, which occurred after the driver collapsed at the controls. The plaintiff argued that the collision could have been avoided if the tramway authority had fitted the tram with system known as ‘dead man’s handle’, a system in use on Sydney’s trains. This would have stopped the tram and avoided the accident. The device had been rejected by the tramway authorities because it was felt that it could cause drivers to become tired, irritated and inefficient. There was no evidence of any similar device in use on two-man trams anywhere in the world. Will the plaintiff succeed in his negligence claim? Explain your reasoning?

Answer:-
Issue: Will the plaintiff succeed in his negligence claim and did the tramway authorities show that they had taken all reasonable care?

“Negligence is an omission to do something that a reasonable person would do, or doing something that a prudent and reasonable person would not do. It is the failure to exercise reasonable care and skill” (Andy Gibson, Douglas Fraser, Business Law 5th edition, Pearson 2011 page No.165).
Hence to succeed in negligence claim there are various elements which has to be established by the plaintiff against the defendant. Above we can see the tramway authorities including the driver are defendant and the passenger who suffered injury is a plaintiff.
Elements of negligence:
A duty of care: If we consider the above issue we can clearly figure out that the tramway driver and tramway authority (the defendant) had owed a duty of care against the passenger (the plaintiff) based in the relationship between them – that is, foreseeable risk of injury – the defendant ought to have foreseen that his/her negligence



References: • Andy Gibson, Douglas Fraser, Business Law 5th edition, Pearson 2011 • Gee v Metropolitan Railway Co [1873] LR 8 QB 161 • Lister v Romford Ice and Cold storage Co Ltd [1957]

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    Plaintiff Robert Lopez flied a claim against Adelanto Stadium, Inc. claiming negligence on fault of Defendants insufficient design and/or installation of netting protection from foul balls under California Civil Code of Procedure §1714. Compl. ¶ 3. Also, Defendant’s negligence in failure to warn of dangers of foul balls. Compl ¶ 7. Mr. Lopez alleges that Adelanto Stadium, Inc. is liable on the sole grounds that they own the stadium in which Mr. Lopez suffered said injuries. Adelanto Stadium, Inc. moves to dismiss because Mr. Lopez’s claim fails as a matter of law, since it lacks sufficient factual matter to render a finding of negligence.…

    • 1264 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Pa201 Unit 3 Assignment

    • 1241 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Negligence is defined as “the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation; any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1133 (9th ed. 2009) …

    • 1241 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The first element is proven by the fact that FF was driving the car that rear-ended DD and caused the accident to occur and the hitchhiker's death. The second element is proven as well due to the fact that under ordinary course of events this type of accident would not occur if the FF had not been negligent by running into DD’s vehicle. Since both of these elements can be proven by the Plaintiff’s evidence, FF is liable of negligence for the…

    • 778 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Plaintiff Randy Fontenot was driving in the city owned police car at high speeds. When he reached an intersection, FOntenot collided with defendant, Germaine Brooks and Wife, in their car. Fontenot was severely hurt, while Brooks’ wife was killed. Randy Fontenot is sued Brooks and his insurance company, Patterson Insurance. Then the DOTD was added as a defendant in this case because they were responsible for the unsafe intersection. At the trial court they ruled that 90% of the fault was on Mr. Brooks; Mr. FOntenot was liable for 10%; and the DOTD was not liable at all. The Fontenot's the filed for an appeal. The appellate court agreed with the trial courts but they said that Fontenot was not liable at all for the accident. They saide Mr. Brooks and the DOTD were each 50% at fault. Now they have appealed to the Supreme Court.…

    • 569 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Jamestown Bus Company

    • 1410 Words
    • 6 Pages

    As in the case of Acosta v. Southern California Rapid Transit District 2 Cal.3d 19, 84 Cal. Rptr. 184 (1970), the plaintiff walked through a half-filled bus to find a seat as she did this, the light changed and the bus started behind another vehicle approximately 40 feet behind it. The driver knew that on the next block there contained a mid-block crosswalk for pedestrians and as he approached the crosswalk he noticed several young boys crossing so he placed his foot on the brake and let the bus coast for about 15 – 20 miles per hour. He abruptly placed the foot on the break when the car in front of him came to a sudden halt in order to avoid hitting the boys going through the crosswalk. In that sudden stop, the plaintiff and two other women were thrown forward in the bus and fell over the coin box and onto the floor placing plaintiff at the bottom. The court in this case favored the plaintiff due to the issue that the bus being a common carrier needed to have the utmost duty of care towards its passenger’s and the court had acknowledged that with the evidence given the driver of the bus had not used the utmost duty of care towards his passenger’s since the driver had knowledge of his daily route and he should have taken more precautions when he saw plaintiff standing, knowing very well the traffic was not a steady flow. As in the case of Acosta, you, the bus company, are held responsible for carrying for your passenger’s. Nicholas the driver did not have the utmost duty of care when driving before Ms. Schultz was seated, nor did he consider her age when he decided to proceed driving prior to her being safely secure in a seat. Ms. Schultz being a frequent bus rider, I’m sure encountered Nicholas the bus…

    • 1410 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Law 531 Case 5.1

    • 1237 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Were Julius Ebanks’ injuries the result of the defendant’s negligent operation and poor maintenance of the escalator?…

    • 1237 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hanrahan, P., Ramsay I., Stapledon G., Commercial Applications of Company Law. CCH 11th edition 2010…

    • 1621 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Mr. Class V.: Case Study

    • 1180 Words
    • 5 Pages

    (#4-7) According to the case, the plaintiff should not be held as semi liable for his injuries while attending the Daytona International Speedway. My client should receive a decision in his favor because NASCAR and the Daytona International Speedway were and are negligent in how races are conducted, the design of the speedway, and the lack of safety barriers to protect spectators, such as my client, from being severely injured during an event. There were several issues that NASCAR and the Daytona International Speedway are responsible for that resulted in the traumatic injury my client sustained. According to my client the numerous problems that resulted in the plaintiff’s injuries are:…

    • 1180 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The plaintiff is more than 50% negligent for his own injuries because he was not wearing a helmet therefore comparative negligence applies. To support the claim that the defendant was not wearing a helmet I believe that the seatbelt safety law can be presented to support the claim. Augst 2nd, 1985 the case of Hukill v. DiGregorio the court deemed the supporting claim of seatbelt as inadmissible based on the fact that seatbelts were not mandatory. In present day law not only in Illinois but throughout the entire United States failure to use your seatbelt is considered breaking the law and imposes a fine or citation for motorists who are caught not wearing the seatbelts. Based on the mandatory seatbelt for motorist presentation of such claim will make a strong defense for our client.…

    • 518 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    midterm mgmt 520

    • 264 Words
    • 1 Page

    The key element of a Tort of Negligence that the railroad uses in their defense is proximate cause, which relates to whether the harm was foreseeable. Long island railroad attendants could not have foreseen the possibility of injuring Mrs. Palsgraph. Thus they did not breach any duty to her. Every person is required to stay clear from activities that may cause any injuries to others, in case of proximate cause, there has to be a natural relation between the causative factor and its effect and not if it could remotely injure a third party. In this case, injury in some form was possible. Negligent conduct resulting in injury to the plaintiff will lead to a liability if it could have been reasonably foreseen. Long island rail road definitely did not owe any duty of care towards the plaintiff. There was no element of the negligence of proximate cause in this case. The rail road would be negligent if any ham was caused to the plaintiff by objects falling from a passing train on the tracks.…

    • 264 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Case Brief

    • 340 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The claimant, Morgan, sustained severe physical injuries caused by an accident which occurred as he was driving a two person bobsled during a national championship race. Morgan was an experienced rider who had been bobsledding for over 20 years and had competed in the US Olympics. He also testified that he was familiar with this particular course and had raced on it many times prior to this race. The area where the accident occurred was recently reconstructed and substantially modified but was approved by FIBT, the regulating authority of the sport. Morgan brought a lawsuit in the Court of Claims stating that the design of the exit ramp was the cause of his accident and injuries. The defendant, State of New York, which owns and operates the mountain, stated that the athlete assumed the risks of a dangerous sport and was primarily to blame for the accident.…

    • 340 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Law Assignment Bungee

    • 1178 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The primary cause of action being pursued by the plaintiff against The Victoria Falls Bungee Co. is vicarious liability as a result of the negligence of their employees. The Victoria Falls Bungee Co. employees were negligent in their actions because they owed a duty of care to ensure customer safety, which they breached, ultimately causing Ms. Langworthy's injuries.…

    • 1178 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    TORTS Final Exam Outline

    • 4593 Words
    • 19 Pages

    • In order to determine if a child is behaving negligently, a child must conform to what a reasonable person of like, age, intelligence, and experience under like circumstances.…

    • 4593 Words
    • 19 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Another employee of your paper mill, Hotspur, steals a shipment of wood pulp for your company to impress you with initiative to secure new resources for free. Unfortunately, he runs down a pedestrian crossing properly in the crosswalk on his way back to your factory, injuring her. If the pedestrian sues your company can there be a recovery for the injury? Discuss your answer.…

    • 264 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    1. Whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and assume the risk of particular accident?…

    • 488 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays

Related Topics