Beatrice (the "employee") has at least two possible causes of action against Alchemy plc (the "employer) which are as follows: (1) a claim for personal injuries in respect of the employer's breach of its duty to provide a safe system of work and (2) a claim for loss of income…
The employer, on the other hand, may have a claim for damages against Beatrice for her negligence.
Employer's Duty of Care and its Breach. In the recent case of Jones v BBC, 2007 WL 2187023 (QBD), where Jones, a freelance sound recordist for defendant BBC claimed that he suffered personal injury when a windmill rotor fell onto his back causing severe spinal injury rendering him paraplegic. In ruling for the claimant, the court stated that since BBC's safety crew had identified a risk of the falling mast, a discussion before filming should have been made to warn the crew not to go beneath it. But the safety crew did not give the warning. Such failure of BBC, through the safety crew, is considered negligent which caused Jones' accident. Thus, the BBC was liable for Jones' injuries. Also, the cameraman and Jones worked as a team because their equipment was linked. Jones with his equipment was following the cameraman who had decided to pass beneath the mast thereby leading Jones into the hazardous area. The cameraman was then in breached of his duty of care and the BBC was vicariously liable for that negligence. In Wilsons & Clyde Coal Company, Limited v English,  A.C. 57, the House of Lords stated as follows: " primarily the master has a duty to take due care to provide and maintain a reasonably safe system of working in the mine, and a master, who has delegated the duty of taking due care in the provision of a reasonably safe system of working to a competent servant, is responsible for a defect in the system of which he had no knowledge" By the Jones and Wilsons cases, it is clear that the employer is under a duty of care to provide the employee with competent fellow employees including a qualified medical personnel, properly maintained site and facilities, and to provide a safe place and system of work. The question of whether the employer breached that duty of care depends on the standard of care owed by the employer to its employee and whether it has taken reasonable steps considering the circumstances. (Latimer v A.E.C. Ltd.) In Jones, the breach of the employer's duty consists in BBC's failure (through its safety crew) to discuss with the cameraman and Jones the risk of the falling mast and to warn the cameraman and Jones in unequivocal terms that they must not go beneath it. In Wilsons, the breach by the employer consists of its failure to provide competent fellow employees, properly maintained mine and equipment, and to provide a safe place and system of work. In the case of the employee here, the failure of the employer considering its nature of business to properly provide and maintain a safe place and system of work free from insects such as wasps, to provide sufficient number of medical personnel and qualified immediate treatment which caused the employee's permanent disability to do manual work constitute a breach of the standard care required from the employer. Considering that the company is engaged in hazardous chemicals, not having any emergency doctor onsite is a breach of its standard of care. It can reasonably be expected that injuries are bound to occur in a chemical factory because, by the very nature of its business alone, the environment with chemicals is susceptible to accidents. Hence, the ...
Cite this document
(“Law of Obligations (Tort Law)LLB Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/309358-law-of-obligations-tort-lawllb
(Law of Obligations (Tort Law)LLB Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 Words)
“Law of Obligations (Tort Law)LLB Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/309358-law-of-obligations-tort-lawllb.
After all “Marriage can be defined as a socially approved union between unrelated parties that give rise to new families” (Hunter, 1991). In particular “Marriage, whether civil or religious, is a contract, formally entered into. It confers on the parties the status of husband and wife, the essence of the contract being an agreement between a man and a woman to live together, and to love one another as husband and wife, to the exclusion of all others” (SH v.
Fred’s claim against Paul regarding the capital gains tax I believe Fred is entitled to sue Paul for the suffered economic loss because of the neglected duty of care on behalf of the latter. Paul had advised Fred to sell some of his stocks and shares in order to avoid the capital gains tax.
In this case, Mr Jones sustained an injury as a result of an accident at his workplace on 13th of September 2010. He works for Cwmfelin University as a maintenance man. Whilst he was walking down some stairs at the University on the day in question, he lost his footing on a loose step and lost balance which subsequently resulted in the injury.
Usually, there are duties owed to people in different circumstances, and for wrongful or negligent actions, there is liability imposed by law. The key function of the Law of Torts is to offer remedies to those claimants who have suffered loss, infringements of rights or harm, which may include physical injury to property or persons, damage to financial interests and reputations of persons, and interference with a person’s enjoyment and use of their property such as land.
In other terms, tort refers to a collection of rights, responsibilities and remedies applicable in the justice system, more so in civil lawsuits to compensate and relieve those affected or harmed by the wrongful actions or omissions by others1. Those who sustain injuries or losses due to tortious conducts are referred to as plaintiffs while those responsible for the injuries and are liable for the damages are referred to as defendants or tortfeasors2.
Jack, the self-employed jobbing carpenter ("co-employee" for convenience), may possibly also have a claim for personal injury against Frances and his parents. The child (and her parents) with whom Ina tripped over may have a claim for damages against Ina and the nursery for personal injuries.
In ‘American Jurisprudence’ it is stated: “…he whose conduct tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard, or otherwise tends to impede, embarrass or obstruct the court in
The researcher of the essay states that under the tort law, if anyone suffers a legal, economical or physical harm, she or he may be entitled to file a suit which when considered to be valid. Issues of nuisance, the issues arising in form of liability in the tort of negligence and causation are mentioned in the essay.
The argument behind this case is that the occupier conducting the construction operations is aware of the danger and therefore is under obligation to offer protection.
One such case which was controversial was
4 Pages(1000 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Law of Obligations (Tort Law)LLB for FREE!