Common Law Essay

Chantelle woods v Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht 1)The relevant information that has bearing on this case vWhat was the previous health condition of Chantelle Woods before the accident? vWhat part of the building was she in? Where there any sign to say that staff and visitors are prohibited from coming in? vWas there any caution sign placed on the steps case? vWhat type of foot wear was she wearing when the accident occurred? vHas anyone ever fell from the step case before? vWas she carrying anything while climbing the steps? vDid she used the ray that was provided on the steps? From the investigation I had done in regard to the accident Mrs Wood had at the place of work during her lunch break, I was able to get the answers to the question listed above which had bearing on this case. Mrs Woods is suffering from short sightedness which means that she had to wear her glasses at all times. The picture of Mrs Woods that was replayed form the CCTV camera show that she was walking on the steps when the accident occurred without her glasses. The spot where the accident occurs was not appropriate place provided for staffs to have their break, although the floor was wet and there was no caution sign to indicate that it was a wet floor. She had proper chosen to go there in order to have a quite place to chat with her friend on the phone. It is very obvious that the kind of shoes Mrs Wood had on can leads to a fall even when the floor is dry, as the hill was about seven inches high. This is neither easy to walk with nor climbing the steps with. Despite that the floor was wet, there was no report that anyone had fell from that steps on that particular day expect Mrs Woods. I also get to understand that Mrs Wood was struggling with a heave file with one on hand, talking on the phone and climbing the steps at the same time. The ray provided was not used by Mrs Woods because she had her hands engaged with stuff. Examine this situation there is a huge possibilities that an accident can occurs. Negligence 2)Negligence What is? â€Å"Negligence can be defined as the failure to act reasonable in any circumstance to avoid causing damage or injury which is foreseeable†. (www.wikipedia.com[->0]) accessed 5/12/12 In other words it simply means harm caused by carelessness but not intentional. Donoghue v Stevenson. This law of negligence was established in the case. A man bought a bottle of ginger beer form a shop. The man gave the beer to his friend who drank it and found slug at the bottom of the bottle. As a result of what he saw, he had a shock and severe gastroenteritis. She took a legal action against the manufacturer. The Judge â€Å"Analyse the rules of negligence that the manufacturer of a product owed a duty of care to the end user of their product. If they failed to exercise a reasonable duty of care in all circumstance and a person suffers loss or damage as a result of their negligence, therefore they made themselves liable for the person’s loss under negligence†. (Davenport, 2008) Before any case can succeed under negligence the following element must be established Element of Negligence vDuty of Care: Is a legal obligation on the individual ensuring that they adhere to a standard of reasonable care when performing an acts they could foreseeable harm other. Everyone owes a reasonable duty of care to avoid foreseeable things that would likely injure or harm their neighbour. The word neighbour is the people closer that can be directly affected by our action. The manufacturer of a product owes a duty of care to the end users of their product. An employer owes a reasonable duty of care to their employee by providing a safe place for them to work. The case of Ryan v Ireland 1989 Explain the extent the employer owes their employees a duty of care to their employees. The plaintiff was a soldier who was working under the supervision of the Superior officer in a conflict situation. So many people lost their lives at that particular spot where he was assigned, as a result of gunshot. This made the entire soldier on guard to abandon their duty in order to save their lives. But after some days the gun fires cease and the area was declare safe. The superior officer ordered the plaintiff to return back to their normal position. The plaintiff was shot at that particular immediately after his resumption this lead to his disablement. The Supreme Court â€Å"Held that the state as an employer had failed to take reasonable care of his servant,† the Officer owes the plaintiff a duty of care, although the work of soldiers involves unavoidable risk of death and injury. A reasonable man can foreseeable that there is a possibility of gunfire at that spot where the plaintiff got injured; as so many people had lost their lives there before. The superior officer who sent an employee under his care to that same spot where killing are taking place did not act reasonable in anyway; therefore the Supreme Court ruled that the state was liable for the plaintiff disablement. (Brian Doolan, 8th edition, 2011) The department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht owes a duty of care Mrs Woods which is to provide a safe place for her to a work as an employee. If the work of a soldier that involves unavoidable risk of death and injury, yet the employer was held liable for the disablement of a plaintiff that got himself involves in such job, Therefore the department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht should be held liable because it is unforeseeable that Mrs Woods can lost her enjoyment of life due to the nature of her job. It is very obvious that the vinyl surface of the stairs was notoriously slippy. A reasonable employer can foresee the possibility of anyone especially a female wearing hill can had a fall due to the situation of the landing. It is the duty of the employer to ensure that there are cleaners on duty during the working hours to keep the environment clean and save. vBreach of the duty of care: Is the failure to act reasonable or protect someone who a person owed a duty of care from the been affected negatively by our action. In this case of Mrs Woods versus Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, prove that there was a breach in duty of care. It is the duty of an employer to provide safe place for the employees to work. During the working hours cleaners and security were supposed to be on duty to tidy up the environment, or indicate that particular spot by placing a caution sign to say that the floor was wet. Even if Mrs Woods was talking on the phone while walking on the land, seeing the caution sign would have made her to take proper care of her steps. In this circumstance, failure to indicate that particular place was not safe to work is the breach in the duty of care. vcausation: This is principle that proves the link between the defendant negligence and the claimant or plaintiff loss or damages. It simply means that if the breach in the duty of care owed to whoever is due for their damage that they are suffering from. The Egg-shell skull rule â€Å"This principle states that the defendant should take their victim as they found them†. (Ursula Connolly, 2005). Anyone who causes damage to another person must pay for whatever injury the person is suffering from. It does not matter if the injury is worse than what another person would have expected. In the case of Vosburg v Putney In United State, 11 years old boy kicked 14 years old boy, who already had an unknown microbial in the shin while at school. The microbial can easily be irritated by kick. As a result of the kick the 14 years old lost the use of his leg. The court ruled that the kick was unlawful; therefore the 11 years boy was held liable (www.wikipedia .com) accessed on the 17/12/2011. Although Mrs Wood already has an existing spine problem, she was still able to do her normal job without any complain. It was just a minor problem for her because it did not stop her from doing anything. As a result of the accident she had during her lunch break made her minor injury worse and inability to return to her normal job. As we all know working with computer involve sit down over a period of time depend on the nature of the job. There is the possibility that Mrs Wood would not be able to do any job that as to do with sitting down over a period of time, due to the nature of the injury which occur at the her place of work. Falling from 10 to 12 steps and landing a head at the bottom could result to a future injury. Therefore the employer should be held liable for her injury according to the egg shell skull rule which says that our victim should be taking as we found them. The type of the injury: There are two types of injuries that are recognised in law, which are as follow. vSpecial injury: These are the injury that are quantifiable in nature, example loss of hearing, hospital bill etc. vGeneral injury: They are less quantifiable in nature but more subjective. Example includes pain, loss of amenity and enjoyment of life and future health problem etc. I would classified Mrs Woods injury as an injury under general damages, because she is suffering from pain, inability to do the job where she earn her living and there is also a possibility that she will have a future spinal cord problem as a result of the accident she had at the place of work. Although the accident Mrs. woods had at her place of work, was not intentional or deliberate act, but she contributed to it. Contributory negligence: This is the situation whereby the Plaintiff contributed or failed to act reasonable to secure her own safety. From my own personal investigation, Mrs. Woods contributed to the accident in so many ways, like chatting on the phone with her friend while climbing the steps. It is very obvious that all her attention were on the phone rather down the concentrating on the steps she was climbing. Despite that the floor was wet; there are other evidence to prove that accident would had occur due to the negligence of Mrs Woods; failure to wear her glasses, walking with 6 inches high heel etc. How could she be able to identified the spot that was wet without wearing her glasses when she suffering from short sightedness. Again the 6 inches high heel she had on was too high to be worn on a working environment. Badger v. The minister of defence EWCH 2005 A widow took a legal action against the minister of defence on behalf of her dead husband, who was a smoker. He was employed as a boiler maker in the department. During the course of his employment, he was exposed to asbestos dust and fibre which made him to be a patient of lung cancer that leads to his untimely death. The medical evidence proved that his continuous smoking habit contributed the lungs cancer that lead to his premature death. Justice Stanley Brown Refers to section 1 (1) of the law Reform (contributory negligence) act 1954 A person that suffers damages, partly from his own fault or the fault of another person excluding the defendant, shall receive reduced recoverable damages as result of his carelessness as required by law. Therefore Mrs. Badger claim was reduced by 25 percent. Therefore there shall be a reduction on the claim of Mrs. Woods as she had failed to exercise a reasonable care for her safety. The limitation Period This is the period of time in which an individual or organisation are given the opportunity to sue for the tort that occurs. Within this period, anyone that which to make a claim for what he/she suffers has a result of the behaviour of the defendant, has the right to do so within the period of time; but after this time limit the case is said to be statue barred as the right to make a claim has been ceased. In the case of Mrs Woods v the department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, The case was within the limitation period, as the accident occurred in February and in August the year she took a legal action against her employer. She made this claim under personal injury and the limitation period for such cases is two years. Her claim is not statue barred because it was within a year. Case two Mr. Cuddy a purchaser who took a proceedings action under negligent mis-statement against Wood Bell Camp about the property he purchased which was incorrectly calculated by Woods Bell Camp’s employee. Negligence Mis Statement What is Negligent Mis-statement? Negligent mis-statement is the representation of fact, carelessly made which is not on the favour of the claimant. It can also be refers to as inaccurate statement that is supplied by a trustworthy person to another who relies and act according to the information he had received. Statement like this are always disadvantages on the side of the claimant. Some of the disadvantages can be loss of income, enjoyment of life etc. For a person to be liable under negligent misstatement, the special relationship must be established. Special relationship is the trust or the relationship that exit between the maker and the recipient of the statement. The maker should be aware that the recipient relies and acts based on the information received from him/her. It is the duty of the maker of the statement to ensure that the information supplied is correct in order not to be liable for it. This special relationship was established in the case of David Walsh v. Jones Lang Lasalle Ltd [2007] IEHC 28. The Plaintiff claims for damages for compensation for the loss and damages he had sustained as a result of negligent and negligent misstatement from the defendant. The plaintiff purchased a property from a well known firm of auctioneer retained by the owner of the property. The plaintiff was given 23,057 square feet, as the total measurement of the floor. He did not to contact a private surveyor to measure the floor area in order to confirm if the measurement supplied by the defendant were accurate. He purchased the property for  £2, 34200 Irish pounds. The purchaser later find out t at the floor area was 1,817 square feet less than was given to him by the defendant. He took a legal action against defendant under negligent misstatement. Judge Quirke â€Å"Deals with this issue saying that the defendants failed to exercise requisite and approach standard of care which a purchaser is entitle to expect from a reputable auctioneer. Therefore is a breach in the duty of care†. Walsh v Jones Lasalle ltd case is quite similar to Cuddy v Wood Bell Camp. The plaintiff Mr Cuddy did not fully relies on the information given to him by Wood Bell Camp because he contacted a property surveyor to examined the property before he made up his mind to purchase the property. He made a loss on that property because the floor measurement is 30% lesser that what he was given to him by the auctioneers. Woods Bell Camp is liable of negligent misstatement by supplying an inaccurate calculation. In the case of Walsh v Jones Lasalle, the high court ruled that most auctioneers had some of form of disclaimer on their brochure â€Å"Judge Quirke explained that the disclaimer comprises of an effort to protect the agent form relatively minor errors. He said that he would expect their measurement to accurate which the purchaser can rely upon†. In this aspect of it, Wood Bell Camp has failed for their inaccurate measurement and the purchaser who relied on upon them had made a loss on his purchase. Judge Quirke If the defendant wished to reserve to itself the right to publish within its sales brochure, precise measurements which were in fact grossly inaccurate and, to relieved itself of liability to the category of persons to whom the brochure and its contents were directed, then there was an obligation upon the defendant to draw to the attention of the plaintiff and other prospective purchasers the fact that the seemingly precise measurements published were likely to be wholly unreliable and should not be relied upon in any circumstances. Satisfy themselves as to the correctness of the information given the defendant failed to discharge that obligation. (Walsh v Jones Lasalle ltd) Since woods Bell Camps had also failed to information the purchaser not rely on their measurement, they should also be held liable for the loss of the purchaser according to Judge Quirke in Walsh v Jones Lasalle Ltd case. Vicarious Liability Vicarious liability is a legal principle that transfers liability of an injury to a person who did not cause the injury, but who has specific relationship to a person who acted negligently. The owner of a vehicle is liable for the tort committed by his driver, an employer is held liable for his employees negligent act, while at work under the course of employment (this is during the working hour when an employer assigned an employee to specific task) any tort committed by the employees while doing the task is known as a tort committed during the course of employment. There is a special relationship that exists between the employer and the employee. Therefore Wood Bell Camp should be held liable under vicarious liability act for the tort committed by the Brody Shine, because he was employed by the company, who assigned him to sell the property purchased by Mr Cuddy. Defence consent and contributory negligence Consent refers to the provision of approval or disapproval, regarding a specific issue after much consideration, this is very important because it render contact lawfully. Although Wood Bell Camp was aware that Mr Cuddy has assigned a property surveyor to examined the property, but they were not aware that the surveyor were only relying on their own measurement instead of taking his own personal measurement of the property. Mr Cuddy also contributed to his own loss by failing to ensure that the property surveyor he had assigned to take the measurement of the property and compared it to the one supplied by Wood Bell Camp before purchasing the property. â€Å"the court ruled that the duty of care of which the plaintiff owes was to ensure that the measurement of the property which the defendant published of the sales brochure was is accurate before purchasing the property.† (In the case of Walsh v Jones lasalle ltd) Although David Walsh did not contacted a property surveyor to examine the property before he purchased it, Mr Cuddy did but only failed to ensure that the measurement are accurate this made him contributed to his own loss. If had he done his own measurement and bring it to the awareness of Wood Bell Camp, I am sure the price would have been reduced for him to suit the correct measurement. Another auctioneer would have been assigned by the company to retake the floor measurement and compared it to what Mr Cuddy property surveyor had provided. Bibliography Brian, Doolan (2011) Principle of Irish Law, Dublin, Gill and Macmillian Davenport, Ruth (2008) make that grade fundamentals of Irish law, Dublin, Gill and Macmillian Ursula, Connolly (2009) Round Hall nutshells Tort, Dublin, Thomson Reuters Electronic Source www.bailii.org. www.courtservice.ie [->0] – http://www.wikipedia.com