Tort Law Problem

In to substantiate a claim against Chemical Logistics Ltd , both(prenominal) Allardyce and Brunhilde are required to first establish whether or non Chemical Logistics Ltd is vicariously liable for the conduct of the tanker number one wood . Once vicarious liability is established , Allardyce and Brunhilde will inevitably consume to determine whether or not the tanker number one wood was negligent and whether or not he owed each of them a job of trade . Negligence depends entirely on whether or not the tanker driver was in breach of that trading of careThe Duty of CareThe test for determining whether or not a duty of care exist was first established by the landmark parapraxis of Donoghue v Stevenson . In this cutting shaper Atkin introduced the dwell regulation which is the accepted test used for ascertaining whether or not a duty of care is owed and to whom According to this principle a duty of care exists in the sense that an single(a) is required to take all necessary precautions to prevent impairment to one s neighbor . `Who then in law is my neighbour ? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and without delay affected by my act that I ought to have 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 cornerstone for all cases involving tortuous claims . In the leading case of Caparo Industries v Dickman the neighbour principle was elaborated on . It was held that in to ascertain whether of not a duty of care existed thither must be a proximity of relationship amongst the parties .

First and foremost , however , the resulting harm must have been foreseeable Moreover , the imposition of a duty of care in the circumstances must be fair , only when and equitable (Industries v Dickman (1989 ) 2 WLR 316 ) In a afterwards case it was held that the criteria set forth in Caparo Industries v Dickman was relevant and relevant in all subsequent cases (Marc Rich Co v Bishop Rock Marine Co (1995 ) 3 wholly ER 307As to whether or not it is fair or right to impose a duty of care Lord Diplock communicate the issue in Dorset Yacht Co . Ltd v home component part . He simply said that `the choice is exercised by making a policy decision 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 made against the Home Office in respect of Prison military officers when juvenile delinquents in their imprisonment caused damage to boats in a harbour . It was held that the Home Officer via its Prison Officers did in fact owe a duty of care to the boat ownersWith reference to the established principles for the imposition of a duty of care it would appear 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 essay, wisit our page: write my essay .