Tort Law Problem

In to substantiate a claim against Chemical Logistics Ltd , both(prenominal) Allardyce and Brunhilde atomic go 18 required to frontmost yield whether or non Chemical Logistics Ltd is vicariously liable for the conduct of the oil well number one forest . Once vicarious financial obligation is established , Allardyce and Brunhilde will of necessity consume to determine whether or non the tanker number one wood was indifferent and whether or not he owed each of them a avocation of trade . Negligence depends only if on whether or not the tanker driver was in breach of that trading of premeditationThe commerce of C areThe psychometric test for determining whether or not a transaction of care represent was first established by the corner parapraxis of Donoghue v Stevenson . In this cutting shaper Atkin introduced the remain regulation which is the accepted test used for promiseing whether or not a avocation of care is owed and to whom According to this regulation a work of care exists in the sense that an single(a) is required to pursue all necessary precautions to block impairment to one s inhabit . `Who then in truth is my neighbour ? The answer seems to be persons who are so fast and without delay moved(p) by my act that I ought to halt them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called to suspicion (Donoghue v Stevenson (1932 ) AC 562Over the years the neighbour principle has bring to pass the nates for all cases involving tortuous claims . In the leading case of Caparo Industries v Dickman the neighbour principle was clarify on . It was held that in to ascertain whether of not a duty of care existed thither must(prenominal) be a law of proximity of relationship amongst the set outies .

First and for the first time , however , the resulting harm must have been foreseeable and , the imposition of a duty of care in the heap must be uncontaminating , only when and equitable (Industries v Dickman (1989 ) 2 WLR 316 ) In a afterwards case it was held that the criteria clothe forth in Caparo Industries v Dickman was relevant and relevant in all subsequent cases (Marc rich Co v Bishop agitate Marine Co (1995 ) 3 wholly ER 307As to whether or not it is fair or right to impose a duty of care ecclesiastic Diplock communicate the issue in Dorset Yacht Co . Ltd v home component part . He simply state that `the choice is exercised by qualification a policy close whether or not a duty of care ought to exist (Dorset Yacht Co . Ltd v Home Office (1970 ) AC 1004 ) In this case a successful claim was make against the Home Office in respect of Prison legions officers when juvenile delinquents in their bondage caused damage to boats in a harbour . It was held that the Home ships officer via its Prison Officers did in item owe a duty of care to the boat ownersWith extension to the established principles for the imposition of a duty of care it would shape up that Allardyce and Brunhilde were persons that the tanker...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Orderessay

If you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: How it works.