English Law: Tort Negligence

Paper Summary:

This paper is a brief review of a tort case in which a young child was injured as the result of an improperly fastened load. The paper suggests that the individual who advised the proprietor on the matter was more culpable than the actual owner of the rig - and that driver, by virtue of his actions, was also culpable for the child's injuries. The paper suggests, ultimately, that restitution for the emotional duress of some of the witnesses will be inevitable.

From the Paper:

"There can be little doubt that tort negligence is a significant and complex part of the legal canon. This paper will examine tort law as it relates to the particular case of Malcolm v. Neil. More specifically, this paper will examine the culpability of Malcolm (and of Neil) and attempt to determine the extent to which both parties are responsible to Peter and to Oliver and Rachel - and the extent to which Neil is responsible to Malcolm. In the final analysis, it appears that the laws governing tort negligence allow Neil very little defense for his actions. To begin with, there is t he matter of "fore-seeability". The modern conception of foreseeability dates back to 1932 when Lord Atkin, offering his opinion in the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson held that individuals "must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions.""

More papers on English Law: Tort Negligence:

• Essay # 63200 : "Proximity and Reasonableness in Law"
• Comparison Essay # 149073 : "Negligence in Occupational Stress Cases"
• Analytical Essay # 130172 : "Responses Concerning the Tort of Negligence and Patient Information."

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: