Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Question about Tort Law
Warne owns a house with a large garden. He employed Hingis Ltd, a firm specialising in tree management, to take down a large tree growing in his garden. Unfortunately Hingis Ltd mismanaged the work and a branch of the tree broke telephone wires leading from a pole across the road to Warne’s house. The wires were trailing dangerously on the road and Shane, a neighbour, fearing they would cause a traffic accident, was attempting to lift the wires to the side of the road when he was knocked down by Martina who was driving her car at speed round the corner. The accident aggravated a pre-existing back condition which meant that Shane’s injuries were fairly severe.
Advise Shane who wishes to know who, if any one, he can sue for compensation for his injuries.
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Shane can sue Hingis Ltd, as it is negligent in carrying out its tree management. ( the company is vicariously liable for the fault done by its employees)
1) the duty of care exists as the some injury is reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of its act, i.e. mismanagement
2) there is a breach of duty of care, the standard required is a reasonable person in the circumstances- the defendent is a firm specialising in tree management , the threshold should be higher.
3) physical injury is done to Shane
Is the car accident a mere link in the chain of causation or it is a 'novus actus interveniens)(NAI)?
If Martina was driving recklessly, likely this is a NAI and break the causation, Shane should go for Martina instead
1) duty of care exist again because of foreseeability- if she drives negligently, she will hurt someone
2) standard of care is a reasonable driver, whether she breached it depends on whether she speeded at that time or other circumstnaces indicating that she drived carelessly
3) injury is done
thin skull rule- you should take the victim as you find him- does not matter plantiff has pre existing back condition, can recover compensation of all injuriesSource(s): myself