You can download the solution to the following question for free. For further assistance in Law assignments please check our offerings in Accounting assignment solutions. Our subject-matter experts provide online assignment help to Accounting students from across the world and deliver plagiarism free solution with free Grammarly report with every solution.
(ExpertAssignmentHelp does not recommend anyone to use this sample as their own work.)
10 cases is going to be necessary to pass the exam. The 1st scenario is about Post stress disorder in Tort law, and the 2nd scenario is about Employment law. He can put 7 cases on the first and 5 cases on the 2nd scenario they are must be relevant related to the scenario more details the best will become.
Review your requirements with our FREE Assignment Understanding Brief and avoid last minute chaos.
We provide you services from PhD experts from well known universities across the globe.
No more plagiarism worries. We give you a FREE Grammarly report with every assignment.
The facts in the given case are that there was a woman who went for a hot air balloon ride, but the balloon exploded at 300 feet, the woman was injured, and the whole incident was seen by the family which included her husband and two kids on the site. The entire event was being screened by a TV channel, and the grandmother of the victim also witnessed the whole incident on the TV channel. There needs to be an appropriate case filed to bring relief to the victims according to the maxim Ubi jus Ibi Remedium which means that for every wrong, there is a remedy provided by law (Van Dam, C. 2013).
The Definition of Tort that is given by Salmond talks about how Tort is a civil wrong which is different from breach of contract or breach of trust. Still, for the wrong, there are remedies available under the common law for damages which aren’t liquidated. In the above-given case, it can be seen that the victim suffered damage which of physical nature and apart from the victim, her kin also went through the trauma which is a form of mental damage and hence where there is damage there needs to be a remedy for it. There are a number of cases which support this.
According to the law of Tort, there are four elements which constitute a Tort – they are duty (something which is supposed to be done/insured/not to be done), breach of duty(the duty wasn’t performed or performed in an inadequate way), causation (the defendant did the breach of duty) and injury (there was damage caused). In the above case, it can be seen that there was a duty to provide a safe ride to the plaintiff, there was a breach of duty which was caused by the fact that the defendant in the case failed to provide safety to the plaintiff, the causation is the fact that the breach of duty was done by the plaintiff and the injury, in this case, is the physical injuries caused to the plaintiff and the mental damage that was done to the kin (Robbennolt et al, 2016).
To prove negligence, it needs to be shown that the Defendants own a certain duty of care to the plaintiff, which was breached. The question that is important here is was there a duty of care which the defendant owned to the plaintiff but was violated? In Donoghue V. Stevenson (1932) there was a ginger beer that contained the decomposed body of a snail in it which ended up causing harm to the plaintiff, and the question that arose at that point did the manufactures owned a duty of care to the plaintiff to ensure that the products that were sold and manufactured by them wouldn’t cause harm to the general consuming it. The court of law said that there was a duty of care which was violated as it could be seen by reasonable foreseeable that harm could be caused by consuming something like that. This is the case where the first element of negligence was established under Tort. In the case given it can be seen that the defendants would be aware that the bursting of the hot air balloon operated by them would lead to severe damage. The harm was reasonably foreseeable. The first element in negligence is reasonably foreseeable. The second element to establish negligence is that there is a close connection between the harm done and the negligent act. It can be seen in this case that the defendant’s act of operating a hot air balloon which wasn't fit to fly immediately resulted in the accident of the plaintiff where she fell of 300 ft. It is fair, just and reasonable in the accord that a person who tries a hot air balloon tries it with the intention that they will have a safe ride and such is a thing that is implied by the people operating it. It is reasonable to assume that a hot air balloon which is flying in the air would have been checked properly and would be safe to use. In this case, it is fair because a hot air balloon should have been safe to use but wasn’t, and it ended up causing severe damage to the plaintiff. Watt V. Hertfordshire Country council(1954)was a leading case on negligence. It proved that there needs to be a certain standard of care that needs to be established beyond which there can’t be damaged claimed (Mendelson, D. 2014).
Nervous shock is the other element in Tort under which the claimant can ask for damages. Nervous shock in plan simple terms can be defined as the psychological shock caused to a person because of a defendant’s actions. It means a psychological shock that causes damage. Generally, when one talks about injury, it is mostly a physical injury that is referred to rather than psychological harm, but over the years it can be seen that psychological injuries are as harmful as any physical injury and sometimes more. Psychological injury can be of a number of types, and it can be of shock, it can be post-traumatic stress disorder etc. Psychological injury doesn't need to be only to the person to whom the damage is caused but people around who seem to have gotten an impact because of the act. There are certain guidelines given by law which are used to establish this (Lim, E. C. 2014).
In the above case, it can be seen that the bursting of hot air balloon which caused the plaintiff harm, also had the husband and the kids witnessing the event along with the grandmother. The physical injury caused to the complainant was there regardless, but there was also a great shock that was suffered by the husband, the kids and the passersby too. Seeing a close loved one falling off 300ft after a burst isn’t something that is great for mental psychology. In Hamrook V. Stokes(1925), a mother got extremely scared for her children as she could perceive immediate danger for them, she filed for damages. The main point under this was whether there was a duty of care owned even out of immediate danger. The damages, in this case, were granted. White V. Chief Constable of Yorkshire(1999) was a case under which due to negligence done by the Chief Constable there was an injury caused to a lot of people and people also claimed for damages under nervous shock as they felt that the incident caused them psychiatric problems. In this case, there were some categories of claimants which were established. There are broadly three categories of claimants – a person who suffers a psychiatry illness due to the act of the defendant, a person who was put in the harm of a physical injury but suffered a mental one due to the act of the defendant and the third is when the close kin suffers an illness by witnessing the death or serious injury of a loved one (Day et al,2016).