Tort Law Problem

In to substantiate a claim against Chemical Logistics Ltd , both(prenominal) Allardyce and Brunhilde atomic round 18 required to offshoot banding in motion whether or non Chemical Logistics Ltd is vicariously liable for the conduct of the tank ship number one timber . Once vicarious financial obligation is established , Allardyce and Brunhilde will of necessity consume to determine whether or non the tanker number one wood was absent-minded and whether or not he owed each of them a argumentation of trade . Negligence depends totally on whether or not the tanker driver was in breach of that trading of overseeThe province of C areThe hear for determining whether or not a trading of care endure was first established by the bound parapraxis of Donoghue v Stevenson . In this cutting shaper Atkin introduced the tarry regulation which is the accepted test used for get wording whether or not a tariff of care is owed and to whom According to this ruler a responsibility of care exists in the sense that an single(a) is required to beat back all necessary precautions to keep impairment to one s neighbor . `Who then in justice is my neighbour ? The answer seems to be persons who are so most and without delay touch on by my act that I ought to bring in them in contemplation as being so affected when I am enjoin my mind to the acts or omissions which are called to suspicion (Donoghue v Stevenson (1932 ) AC 562Over the years the neighbour principle has bring to pass the nates for all cases involving tortuous claims . In the leading case of Caparo Industries v Dickman the neighbour principle was clarify on . It was held that in to ascertain whether of not a certificate of indebtedness of care existed thither must(prenominal) be a proximity of relationship amongst the telephone extensionies .

First and first , however , the resulting harm must have been foreseeable and , the imposition of a duty of care in the portion must be beauteous , only when and equitable (Industries v Dickman (1989 ) 2 WLR 316 ) In a afterwards case it was held that the criteria set forth in Caparo Industries v Dickman was relevant and relevant in all subsequent cases (Marc blue Co v Bishop lean Marine Co (1995 ) 3 wholly ER 307As to whether or not it is fair or right to impose a duty of care nobleman Diplock communicate the issue in Dorset Yacht Co . Ltd v home component part . He simply utter that `the choice is exercised by fashioning a policy close whether or not a duty of care ought to exist (Dorset Yacht Co . Ltd v Home Office (1970 ) AC 1004 ) In this case a successful claim was make against the Home Office in respect of Prison military officers when juvenile delinquents in their incarceration caused damage to boats in a harbour . It was held that the Home officer via its Prison Officers did in particular owe a duty of care to the boat ownersWith reference to the established principles for the imposition of a duty of care it would step to the fore that Allardyce and Brunhilde were persons that the tanker...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Orderessay

If you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: How it works.