1. William v Edmund A. Duty of care Foreseeability – there will be accidents if bus isn’t checked properly and if Edmund doesn’t watch the road. Fair just reasonable. Proximity – safety of William depended on Edmunds careful driving B. Breach of duty – Edmund did not check the bus thoroughly before taking the bus out and did not watch the road ahead of him whilst driving C. Causation: but for Edmund driving safely, watching the road and checking the bus thoroughly, Willie would not have sustained the injuries. D.
Remoteness: Applying the reasonable foreseeability test, the kind of harm was a foreseeable consequence of Edmund’s careless driving and the manner of was also a foreseeable consequence of Edmund’s failure to identify the loose hinges on the door. While it may be common practice for drivers to turn on the radio, but they should at least stop at the side or wait for a red light to tune their radio on a bus filled with little kids. Especially since the road may be slippery since the storm drain was filled with water.
2. Sam v Edmund Wagner v International Railway – Edmund’s careless driving and failure to maintain the bus caused the traffic accident and created a dangerous situation that invited rescue for William Potential Defence: Contributory negligence – Eckert v. Long Island R. R. Co, Baker v TE Hopkins & Son Ltd – am did not do unreasonably endanger himself because the suddenness of William being thrown off the bus had created a situation in which Sam had instinctively done what every reasonable rescuer would have done 3.
William v. TCS 4. Sam v. TCS (These two claims can be analysed within the same frame) A. employer-employee relationship 1. Organization/ integration test: c. f. Market Investigations v Minister of Social Security; Lee Ting Sang v Chung Chi Keung; – Edmund is performing the services for the business purpose of TCS, and parents pay TCS not Edmund 2. Control test: c. f. Chan Ming v Wayfine Investment Ltd – there was a substantial degree of control – how Edmund should conduct his work and he required to wear a uniform.
3. Multiple test: c. f. Poon Chau Nam v Yim Siu Cheung, the court prefers an overall impression approach than a mechanical one. Although in the absence of mutuality of obligation, a contract of service can come to existence every time the Edmund engaged in the work. C. f. Lee Chi Fai v Sunrise Knitting Factory Ltd, Edmund’s power to take on helpers on his work was not conclusive against him that he was not an employee. B. Tort committed – did not watch the road properly nor check bus C.
Tort committed in course of employment c. f. Ming An Insurance Co Ltd v Ritz-Carlton Ltd – his failure to conduct safety check was closely connected with the urgent assignment of work. Edmund tuning in the radio did not deviate from the job, and it is common practice that professional drivers may listen to the radio while driving, c. f. Rose v Plenty – although there is express prohibition, Sam’s presence was for the business purpose of TCS.