Tort Law Master Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Tort Law Master - Case Study sheathMr. Andrews could be implicated with legal liability for a failure to act.3As with regards to Mr. Andrews, he stolon had an obligation to Mr. brownness that he would treat him fairly as he would any of his other(a) investors. This responsibleness of care is evidenced in the following case. In Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 562, Lord Atkin recognized that the active examples of duties to take care could be seen as aspects of a single tortwhereas in Anns v Merton 1978 AC 728, Lord Wilberforce tell the single, universal test for the duty of care in negligence arose on the basis of neighbourhood, unless there was around distinct reason to deny a duty.6Mr. Andrews next breached the obligation to be fair to Mr. cook by acting in a manner inconsistent with the way a responsible managing managing director of a company normally would. Mr. Andrewss tierce and fourth causes of action were that his conduct was the cause of harm, and did harm Mr. Brown. Mr. Andrews was distinctly at fault, according to the Law domesticize Act of 1945 which states that Fault is . . . negligence, breach of statutory duty or other act or omission which gives sneak to a liability in tort.7Consequentially, as a result of this negligence, Mr. ... Mr. Andrews next breached the obligation to be fair to Mr. Brown by acting in a manner inconsistent with the way a responsible managing director of a company normally would. Mr. Andrewss third and fourth causes of action were that his conduct was the cause of harm, and did harm Mr. Brown. Mr. Andrews was clearly at fault, according to the Law Reform Act of 1945 which states that Fault is . . . negligence, breach of statutory duty or other act or omission which gives rise to a liability in tort.7 Consequentially, as a result of this negligence, Mr. Browns surviving relatives could sue for chafe and suffering, which would include the mental and emotional trauma which are recoverable as elements of damage in torts.8 Damages would be determined by the judge.With regards to the second case, there are several tort issues that come on up. Tortsinclude all wrongs of commission to rights in tangible matter, wrongs to rights in the body, life, liberty and security, and wrongs to rights in tangible property, its possession and pocket control.9 Mr. orange, if he survives the automobile accident, is liable not only in situation of having robbed the bank, but to boot would face charges due to having injured Mr. White in the process of robbing the bank. Not only this, but Mr. Brown could sue Mr. Orange for recklessness and subsequent damages sustained from the car accident that ensued following the robbery. Thus, Mr. Orange is in a great deal of trouble. Not only does he incur liability for robbing a bank, but in the process of committing that crime, he injured two people. As such, if he does survive, Mr. Orange