Shopping & Style1 min ago
Who to sue?
14 Answers
Following discussion on another thread here is a poser:
Mr. A is a paying passenger on a closed coach tour wholly within the UK provided by Company P. Mr. A does not suffer from diminished eyesight relative to his age (65 yrs).
During a stop in daylight hours at a public Service Area operated by Company Q, but owned by The Highways Agency, a government body, Mr A. trips over a permanent concrete obstacle in the car park placed there by Company Q. Mr. A was returning to the coach operated by Company P.
No employee of Company P instructed Mr. A. to walk that way, neither did they alert Mr. A. of possible obstacles. The route taken by Mr. A was not the only way of returning to the coach as it was in an open area, and no-one coerced Mr. A to take that route.
Company Q did not erect signs referring to obstacles, but had painted them bight yellow and they were clearly visible. No other person in the party tripped over these obstacles, and Company Q say that they are unaware of people tripping over the obstacles and have received no claims in the past arising from such incidents.
Mr. A considers suing someone for the damage and losses cause by his tripping over the obstacle. Who should he sue, and why?
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hippy. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I agree with Hgrove. Company Q is the correct entity to sue, as it is the occupier of the property (see the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 for more info). Who owns the property is largely irrelevant (though if the highways agency did also occupy the land along with Company Q, then they could be jointly liable). Whether Mr A has a reasonable cause of action though is another matter!
He is not entitled to sue anybody. he should have been looking where he was bl**dy well going!
What would Mr A suggest other than clearly painting any obstacle. Would he prefer it if they had flashing lights, dramatic music being played by the London Philharmonic Orchestra and some underpaid student in a fluorescent jumpsuit waving his arms and shouting "Mind the brightly painted obstacle!!!"
What is happening to this country? The population is being brainwashed by these overhyped adverts on tv and turning into a bunch of bl**dy freeloaders.
Accept some responsibility over your inability to perform a simple task ie walking, and get on with your life.
Rant over!
I saw this earlier and couldn�t be bothered to reply as I thought it was some ambulance chaser doing their exams.
Gevs1966 says it all.
Take some responsibility for your own actions - learn how to walk - don�t rely on the �blame culture� that is infesting this country to get you some money if you don�t watch where you�re going. It's your fault Mr.A!!!
How many brandys did he have on the coach?
Gevs1966 says it all.
Take some responsibility for your own actions - learn how to walk - don�t rely on the �blame culture� that is infesting this country to get you some money if you don�t watch where you�re going. It's your fault Mr.A!!!
How many brandys did he have on the coach?
The Miss Zippy answer is not correct. Only if Mr A made his own individual arrangements for each section and part of the journey would Mr A sue Company Q in the incident stated. However, we are told that the journey is a "closed coach tour" from which we are left to assume that someone else (the Organiser) made all of the arrangements from start back to finish (including hotels, if any). In this case in the incident stated Mr A would sue the Organiser (or Company P if they were one and the same).
Firstly, I can assure you all that we have now overtaken America per head of poplation, in the negligence claims.
Quite complicated situation really, and yet very simple.
Couple of point that any law student learns about tort (and contract) before I go on.
You make a claim against the person that has the money (no use winning a claim when they have no money to pay you)
You can claim from more than one (joint tortfesur - spelling - sorry)
You can claim in Tort, which would be in negligence or
You can claim in Contract (breach of) with the coach comapny. It will say that they will take reasonable care (or the like) of their passangers.
As well as claiming from more than one, you can also claim in both contract and negligence (coelatarally)
Cont.
Quite complicated situation really, and yet very simple.
Couple of point that any law student learns about tort (and contract) before I go on.
You make a claim against the person that has the money (no use winning a claim when they have no money to pay you)
You can claim from more than one (joint tortfesur - spelling - sorry)
You can claim in Tort, which would be in negligence or
You can claim in Contract (breach of) with the coach comapny. It will say that they will take reasonable care (or the like) of their passangers.
As well as claiming from more than one, you can also claim in both contract and negligence (coelatarally)
Cont.
Cont.
Neglgence claims (in this instance) can sought throught statute((Occupier's Liability Act 1957 - (1984 Act was introduced for Trespassers))
Or through general Common Law and its Rules. This is all about a 'Duty of Care' the Act provides a statutory duty, but if a claim is not possible throughth wording of the act, and due to the specific facts of the case, a 'Common Law' claim may be made.
A general duty of care was formed in common law through a 1932 case called Donoghue v Stevenson (which also devised the principle of 'the umtimate consumer' - the right to claimfrom manufacturers for faulty goods)
Lord Atkin Devised a 'Neighbour Principle' to ascertain wheteher a general duty of care should exist in the absence of a statutory one. It was this -
"...You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be � persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question..."
Most famous legal case ever, and brilliant.
ELEMENTS OF NEGLIGENCE
- Duty, Breach and damage.
Must be a duty of care. Duty of care must have been breached (maybe they did all they reasonably could do). If there is a breach of the duty of care, the damage (or injury) must be as a direct result of that breach (there may have been intervening causes - someone else'es fault).
Looking at it the facts. I would say that there was an obvious duty of care by all, but it looks (prima face) as if there was no breach of that duty, and therefore, no cause of action.
Cont.
Neglgence claims (in this instance) can sought throught statute((Occupier's Liability Act 1957 - (1984 Act was introduced for Trespassers))
Or through general Common Law and its Rules. This is all about a 'Duty of Care' the Act provides a statutory duty, but if a claim is not possible throughth wording of the act, and due to the specific facts of the case, a 'Common Law' claim may be made.
A general duty of care was formed in common law through a 1932 case called Donoghue v Stevenson (which also devised the principle of 'the umtimate consumer' - the right to claimfrom manufacturers for faulty goods)
Lord Atkin Devised a 'Neighbour Principle' to ascertain wheteher a general duty of care should exist in the absence of a statutory one. It was this -
"...You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be � persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question..."
Most famous legal case ever, and brilliant.
ELEMENTS OF NEGLIGENCE
- Duty, Breach and damage.
Must be a duty of care. Duty of care must have been breached (maybe they did all they reasonably could do). If there is a breach of the duty of care, the damage (or injury) must be as a direct result of that breach (there may have been intervening causes - someone else'es fault).
Looking at it the facts. I would say that there was an obvious duty of care by all, but it looks (prima face) as if there was no breach of that duty, and therefore, no cause of action.
Cont.
Cont.
Bare in mind taht these things are always tried on an objective view under the 'reasonablness' test. One or more of the parties may be liable, but even then there may be 'contributory liability' (this takes percentage off the amount of the claim)
Go and get yourself a book on negligence - i've only mention a couple of things on a fasinating area of law - you could write about it for an age.
Regards,
Steve
Bare in mind taht these things are always tried on an objective view under the 'reasonablness' test. One or more of the parties may be liable, but even then there may be 'contributory liability' (this takes percentage off the amount of the claim)
Go and get yourself a book on negligence - i've only mention a couple of things on a fasinating area of law - you could write about it for an age.
Regards,
Steve
Hippy - if you are the "Mr. A." in the question posted above I can only say I'm relieved you're not a friend of mine. I'd be terrified even to invite you into my home in case you tripped over a fleck of dust en route to my dinner table for the free meal I was serving you in case you decided to sue me for negligence.
Sometimes in life we just have to act as grown-ups and accept resonsibility for our own behaviour. Accidents happen, often because of our own carelessness or inattention and Local Authorities who demolish conker trees and the world in general would be a darned sight less stressed if everybody recognise this.
Thanks for that Erimus1. Wendy, I am not the MR. A or any of the parties involved, but was related this real life tale by an acquaintance. Aside from contributory negligence by Mr. A I genuinely could not see who else was negligent in this case, other than those in the vicinity of Mr. A as he approached the obstacle.
Thanks all for your answers. Stars all round.
1 to 14 of 14
