The Caparo Case
Sarah has come across some issue with her friend Ad, Cheryl and the local authority. This essay will explain and advice what actions she should take and relevant case law would be mentioned.
Sarah give a lift to Ad to his workplace. She crashed her car and hit a bollard and another car on the road. To find if Sarah owes a duty of care, the Caparo test would be used. In order for a duty to impose a duty, there must be sufficient proximity. Ad and Sarah are both long standing friends, this shows that there is proximity between the two parties. This is shown in the case of Bourhill v Young. The court decided that there was no legal relationship between the party. The claimant had no proximity because she did not see the collision only heard …show more content…
Cheryl would not have had her car writ of if Sarah didn’t not go on the other side of the road. Implying the but for test, Sarah would be the factual causation of the car accident. Sarah was reckless and careless, this resulted Sarah hitting another car on the road. This is like the case of Chester v Afshar. In this case, the claimant asked about the potential risk of an operation. The surgeon failed to warn him about there is 1% chance of being permanently paralysed. The court concluded the advice of the warning would have delayed the date of the operation but the paralysis would still have occurred.
The damages that Cheryl can attain from Sarah is compensation. Sarah will have to give compensation for the damages of Cheryl car. The court would use a principle guide to work out how much to be compensated. However, from the car accident Cheryl chose not driver ever again. Sarah will not be able to compensate this as this the opinions of Cheryl. Cheryl did not suffer any injuries, just damages to the car. Sarah will have to compensate for the damages of her because of her negligent …show more content…
Sarah legally owes a duty of care to the road. Sarah would need to driver to a standard of care. Sarah’s car had hit a bollard.There is proximity between these two parties and a legal relationship would exist.This can be shown in the case of It is fair and reasonable to impose a duty because it was foreseeable harm would be caused because of Sarah’s action.This can be shown in the case of Caparo industries Plc v Dickman.In this case the court concluded that there was no duty owed because there was insufficient proximity. The auditors were not aware of the existence of Caparo.
By determining a duty of care exist between the local authority.Sarah has breached her duty of care.The objective is used to help determine if a duty is breached.An example of a case is Applying this to Sarah is that Sarah should have met the standard of the care that is required and by not meeting the criteria, Sarah has breached the duty of care.This is implied in the case of Blake v Galloway. In this case, the court used the context of ‘horseplay ‘ that there is a breach of duty of care because there was a high degree of carelessness.The defendant had consented to the risk of injury and understanding of the
Sarah give a lift to Ad to his workplace. She crashed her car and hit a bollard and another car on the road. To find if Sarah owes a duty of care, the Caparo test would be used. In order for a duty to impose a duty, there must be sufficient proximity. Ad and Sarah are both long standing friends, this shows that there is proximity between the two parties. This is shown in the case of Bourhill v Young. The court decided that there was no legal relationship between the party. The claimant had no proximity because she did not see the collision only heard …show more content…
Cheryl would not have had her car writ of if Sarah didn’t not go on the other side of the road. Implying the but for test, Sarah would be the factual causation of the car accident. Sarah was reckless and careless, this resulted Sarah hitting another car on the road. This is like the case of Chester v Afshar. In this case, the claimant asked about the potential risk of an operation. The surgeon failed to warn him about there is 1% chance of being permanently paralysed. The court concluded the advice of the warning would have delayed the date of the operation but the paralysis would still have occurred.
The damages that Cheryl can attain from Sarah is compensation. Sarah will have to give compensation for the damages of Cheryl car. The court would use a principle guide to work out how much to be compensated. However, from the car accident Cheryl chose not driver ever again. Sarah will not be able to compensate this as this the opinions of Cheryl. Cheryl did not suffer any injuries, just damages to the car. Sarah will have to compensate for the damages of her because of her negligent …show more content…
Sarah legally owes a duty of care to the road. Sarah would need to driver to a standard of care. Sarah’s car had hit a bollard.There is proximity between these two parties and a legal relationship would exist.This can be shown in the case of It is fair and reasonable to impose a duty because it was foreseeable harm would be caused because of Sarah’s action.This can be shown in the case of Caparo industries Plc v Dickman.In this case the court concluded that there was no duty owed because there was insufficient proximity. The auditors were not aware of the existence of Caparo.
By determining a duty of care exist between the local authority.Sarah has breached her duty of care.The objective is used to help determine if a duty is breached.An example of a case is Applying this to Sarah is that Sarah should have met the standard of the care that is required and by not meeting the criteria, Sarah has breached the duty of care.This is implied in the case of Blake v Galloway. In this case, the court used the context of ‘horseplay ‘ that there is a breach of duty of care because there was a high degree of carelessness.The defendant had consented to the risk of injury and understanding of the