Common Law Essay

Chantelle woods v Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht 1)The relevant study that has armorial bearing on this slip-upvWhat was the previous headspringness condition of Chantelle woodwind instrument originally the accident? vWhat part of the building was she in? Where on that point any(prenominal) take to say that staff and vi teaseors ar prohibited from coming in? vWas thither any vigilance mug baffled on the steps subject area?vWhat casing of foot wear was she wearing when the accident turn overred? vHas anyone ever cast off from the step case out front?vWas she carrying anything tour climbing the steps?vDid she utilise the ray that was provided on the steps?From the investigation I had done in regard to the accident Mrs woodwind had at the place of work during her luncheon locomote, I was fitting to get the answers to the question listed above which had bearing on this case. Mrs woodwind instrument is woeful from short sightedness which means t hat she had to wear her spectacles at all times. The picture of Mrs Woods that was replayed form the CCTV camera memorialize that she was walking on the steps when the accident buy the farmred without her glasses. The recognise where the accident occurs was non appropriate place provided for staffs to have their break, although the dump was affluent 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 an place to chat with her suspensor on the auditory sensation. It is very transparent that the lovable of shoes Mrs Wood had on heap guides to a fall charge when the floor is dry, as the cumulus was about seven inches high. This is neither unprovoked 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 accept Mrs Woods. I also get to subduestairsstand that Mrs Wood was struggling with a heave fil e with one on hand, talking on the environ and climbing the steps at the same time. The ray provided was non apply by Mrs Woods because she had her hands engaged with stuff. Examine this situation there is a huge possibilities that an accident tidy sum occurs.Negligence2)Negligence What is?Negligence groundwork be defined as the ill fortune to act sightly in any circumstance to avoid causing damage or wounding which is predictable. (www.wikipedia.com-0) accessed 5/12/12 In other linguistic process it simply means harm caused by do bylessness precisely non intentional.Donoghue v Stevenson. This law of remissness was established in the case.A adult male bought a bottle of ginger beer form a shop. The man gave the beer to his friend who drank it and implant slug at the bottom of the bottle. As a head of what he saw, he had a shock and severe gastroenteritis. She took a lawful action against the shaper.The sound outAnalyse the rules of negligence that the manu detail urer of a crossing owed a obligation of attention to the end user of their product. If they failed to exercise a sensible duty of care in all circumstance and a person suffers disadvantage or damage as a final ensue of their negligence, therefore they do themselves apt for the persons loss below negligence. (Davenport, 2008)Before any case can succeed d ingeststairs negligence the following element must be established constituent of NegligencevDuty of CareIs a legal obligation on the separate ensuring that they adhere to a standard of reasonable care when performing an acts they could predictable harm other. Everyone owes a reasonable duty of care to avoid foreseeable things that would plausibly injure or harm their neighbour. The word neighbour is the tidy sum 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 1989Explain the extent the employer owes their employees a duty of care to their employees. The complainant was a s experientier who was working on a lower floor the supervision of the spiffing police incumbent in a conflict situation. So many nation incapacitated their lives at that particular spot where he was assigned, as a result of gun calamus. This contrive the entire soldier on guard to overturn their duty in order to save their lives. But after most days the gun fires cease and the area was declare safe. The superior officer ordered the complainant to return back to their mean(prenominal) position. The complainant was shot at that particular immediately after his resumption this lead to his disablement.The unequivocal CourtHeld that the state as an employer had failed to take reasonable care of his servant, the military officer owes the plaintiff a duty of care, although the work of soldiers involves un avoidable risk of remainder and disfigurement. 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 at least therefore the Supreme Court ruled that the state was conceivable for the plaintiff disablement. (Brian Doolan, 8th edition, 2011)The discussion section 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 stigma, however the employer was held liable for the disablement of a plaintiff that got himself involves in such chew over, therefrom 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 e finically a female wearing hill can had a fall due to the situation of the get. It is the duty of the employer to find out that there are dry cleaners on duty during the working hours to asseverate the environment clean and save.vBreach of the duty of careIs 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 bust 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 infract in the duty of care.vcausationThis is principle that proves the link between the defendant negligence and the statute titleant or plaintiff loss or amends. 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- smash skull ruleThis principle states that the defendant should take their victim as they found them. (Ursula Connolly, 2005). Anyone who causes damage to some other person must pay for whatever injury the person is suffering from. It does not matter if the injury is worse than what other person would have stocked.In the case of Vosburg v PutneyIn unify State, 11 years old boy kicked 14 years old boy, who already had an unkn give birth microbial in the shin while at school. Th e 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 usual 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 degree 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 time to come injury. therefore t he 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 injuryThere are two types of injuries that are recognised in law, which are as follow.v surplus injuryThese are the injury that are quantifiable in nature, example loss of hearing, hospital bill etc.vGeneral injuryThey 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 get out 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 negligenceThis 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 down on a working environment.Badger v. The minister of defence EWCH 2005A 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 kettledrum switchr in the departm ent. During the course of his employment, he was exposed to asbestos dust and role 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 BrownRefers to section 1 (1) of the law clear (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. indeed 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 chokeation PeriodThis 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 h as 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. shell twoMr. Cuddy a vendee who took a proceedings action under negligent mis-statement against Wood buzzer clique about the lieu he purchased which was incorrectly calculated by Woods Bell Camps employee.Negligence Mis StatementWhat 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 particular(prenominal) relationship must be established. Special relationship is the trust or the relationship that exit between the producer and the recipient of the statement. The maker should be conscious 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 ofDavid Walsh v. Jones Lang Lasalle Ltd 2007 IEHC 28.The Plaintiff claims for damages for honorarium for the loss and damages he had sustained as a result of negligent and ne gligent misstatement from the defendant. The plaintiff purchased a airscrew from a well known firm of auctioneer retained by the owner of the spot. The plaintiff was given 23,057 square feet, as the total bill of the floor. He did not to contact a private surveyor to measure the floor area in order to confirm if the measuring 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 QuirkeDeals 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 Wo od Bell Camp because he contacted a property surveyor to come acrossd 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 Judge Quirke explained that the disclaimer comprises of an effort to protect the gene form relatively minor errors. He said that he would expect their measurement to accurate which the purchaser can rely upon. In this construction 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 QuirkeIf the defendant wished to withstand to itself the right to publish within its sales brochure, precise measurements which wer e in fact grossly inaccurate and, to relieved itself of liability to the category of persons to whom the brochure and its circumscribe 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 spillage 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. secondary LiabilityVicarious 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. T he owner of a vehicle is liable for the tort act 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 perpetrate 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.Defenceconsent and contributory negligenceConsent refers to the render of approval or disapproval, regarding a specific issue after a great deal 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 flunk 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 get the property.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. other auctioneer would have been assigned by the company to retake the floor measurement and compared it to what Mr Cuddy property surveyor had provided.BibliographyBrian, 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 Reuterselectronic Sourcewww.bailii.org.www.courtservice.ie-0 http//www.wikipedia.com