Common law - Tort

Advice for John and Joe as to the sort of action, if any, which they may respectively bring and against whom, if anyone, the action will lie. Rules: - "In some torts it is necessary to establish both wrong and loss resulting from it; this is the rule in the tort of negligence" (BPP Professional Education, 2004, pg 112). - "When there is a sequence of physical cause and effect without human intervention, the ultimate loss is too remote (so that the damage cannot recover for it) unless it could have been reasonably foreseen that some loss of that kind might occur as a consequence of the wrong". (BPP Professional Education, 2004, pg. 114).

Sale of Goods Act 1979: merchantable quality: fit for the purpose for which goods of that description are commonly bought as is reasonable to expect. - 4 steps to prove negligence: 1. The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff 2. The defendant breaches this duty 3. The plaintiff suffered damage(injury) as a direct result of the defendant's breach 4. The defendant did not have a defense Application: John and Joe were on holiday together and had rented a caravan at Nurdsley Bay. The weather was poor and John had been complaining that he could not sleep at night because of the cold.

Joe, being a generous sort of person, bought a hot water bottle from a local shop and gave it to John, refusing any payment from John for it. That night the hot-water bottle burst and John was badly scalded. Joe was sleeping on the bunk below and some of the hot water splashed down his face, causing him injury Joe bought a hot water bottle form local shop. John made a contract with the local shop when buying the hot-water bottle; he was protected by the Sales of Goods Act 1979. Joe gave the bottle for John, refusing any payment, so there was no contract between Joe and John, and Joe was not user.

However, when opening the hot-water bottle, it suddenly burst. Joe was sleeping on the bunk below and some of the hot water splashed down his face, causing him injury. The hot-water bottle was not safe in quality, and not fit the purpose of quality in warming and the direct victim is Joe, not John. However, in Sales of Goods Act- merchantable quality stated that product that fit for the purpose for which goods of that description are commonly bought as is reasonable to expect. John did not use the hot-water bottle but he had the contract with local shop which had liability in safety of product.

If Joe wanted to apply law of tort in this case, he could use 4 steps of negligence. First, there was the duty of care of the manufacturer to all customer and user. Second, the manufacturer breached when the bottle was burst and made him injury because he was sleeping on the bunk below and some of the hot water splashed down his face. It was reasonable for the manufacturer to foresee that if the bottle was broken, hot water could split to surrounding and made other person hurt. The face injury of Joe was from the cause and effect of bursting water from John. There were no defenses for the manufacturer.

John received the hot-water bottle from John without any payment, so there was no contract between local shop and John, John and Joe. However, the manufacturer which produced the hot-water bottle had duty of care to all people who use this bottle, (see the case Donoghue vs Stevenson 1932). This was the first step and satisfied of the negligence in law of tort that is legal wrong caused damage. Next step, the manufacturer breached the duty of care to customer when the hot-water bottle suddenly burst. The risk was reasonably foreseeable. That night the hot-water bottle burst and John was badly scalded.

His injury was resulted directly from manufacturer's breach. There was no defense for manufacturer. Conclusion: John can sue local shop for breach the condition that implied by the statue- Sales of Goods Act 1979 in merchantable quality. Local shop can claim the manufacturer for Satisfactory of goods for bad quality of hot-water bottle. John can sue only for the bursting hot-water bottle. Moreover, he can claim the manufacturer based on the tort law. According to this law, he can claim for face injury, and can have compensation for his damages in face. Thus, Joe should claim the manufacturer because it is more advantageous for Joe.

Joe can sue the manufacturer for his injury- badly scalded according to law of tort-negligence. 2. Claim 2: a. Nancy's case: Issues: Explain whether Talbot would be liable for the damage. Rules: "An occupier owes a duty of care to all visitors to the premises and must take such precautions as are necessary to make the premises reasonably safe for the purpose for which the visitor is permitted to enter them" (BPP Professional Education, 2004, pg. 129) Applications: Talbot, a motor mechanic, spilt some engine oil near the open entrance-way to his workshop.

He immediately scrubbed it with detergent, but the surface remained slightly oily. Talbot went to get some sand from the back of the workshop and the phone rang. Not wanting to miss a customer, he returned to answer the call. His back was turned for 30 seconds. Talbot did not take reasonable care to all customers by scrubbing with detergent and went to get some sand but he left to pick up the phone, this turned was about 30 seconds. The floor was still slightly oily and it was easy to customer to slip if they did not see the oil on the floor.

According to occupier's liability, "an occupier owes a duty of care to all visitors to the premises and must take such precautions as are necessary to make the premises reasonably safe for the purpose for which the visitor is permitted to enter them" (BPP Professional Education, 2004, pg. 129). Therefore, Talbot had duty of care to all visitors, including Nancy. He had liability in safety of her and he must take the precautions. However he breached this duty of care to customer by oily floor and failed to give warnings to customers. During that time Nancy, a customer, entered.

She slipped and broke her leg. This damage was resulted directly from breaches of Talbot and there was no defense for Talbot to exclude this liability. Conclusion: Nancy can sue Talbot for breach the duty of occupier's liability and strict liability although he took reasonable care. Nancy can claim for damages are breaking her leg. In the next time, Talbot should put the precaution that is enough to enable the visitors to be reasonable safe in the store to exclude his liability. The best way is he closes the shop to avoid customer enter the shop and scrub the oil cleanly.