Introduction to the case:

This case deals with Alan who took job with the Uptown Country Council (UCC). His job was installing road signs on roads in the country. On the 14th of July Alan was driving a Ucc vehicle, containing yellow paint, into straight Street in order to install double yellow lines along both sides of the road. Alan worked in the morning session and went for the lunch in the Ucc vehicle to Erics fish and chip shop at the end of Straight Street. As he came near the Chip chop Alans hand fell on the lever causing the lever to shift which resulted in spilling the entire container of paint on the road and even poured on Samanthas car. Because of this Syd was not able to operate his delicatessen business so he cancelled his order for cakes and breads from Dons bakery by saying that the daily order is frustrated. Area of Law Involved Law of tort

Negligence and vicarious liability

Law of torts: It is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of a trust or other merely equitable obligation. (Salmomd cited by bangia, 2002) Law Of Torts R.K. Bangia , SIXTEENTH EDITION 2002 CH 1 PG 4

Essentials of Tort 1. There must be some act or omission on the part of the defendant. 2. The act or omission should result in legal damages i.e. violation of a legal right vested in the plaintiff. Negligence: it is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon these considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. (Salmond & Heuston, 2002) Burden Proof: It has four main elements: The defendant must owe a duty of care to the claimant The defendant made breach of that duty The claimant suffered damages as a consequences thereof Remoteness of damage

1. Duty of Care to the plaintiff: It refers to legal duty rather than a simple moral, religious or social duty. The claimant has to establish that the defendant owed to him a specific legal duty to take care of which he has made a breach.

2. Breach of duty: Breach of duty means non-observance of due care which is required in a particular situation. If the defendant has acted like a reasonably prudent man, there is no negligence. The standard is objective and it means what a judge considers should have been the standard of a reasonable man

3. Damage: There is presumption of negligence accordingly to the maxim res ipsa loquitur which means the thing speak for itself. The law raises a presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant. The defendant can, however avoid his liability by disproving negligence on his part.

4. Remoteness of damage: Confusion has also arisen from the fact that the concept of reasonable foresight is relevant not only in testing the existence of a duty i.e. to the question of culpability and not of compensation, but also in cases of admitted negligence to the question of remoteness of damage, i.e. of compensation and not of culpability VICARIOUS LIABILITY Generally , a person is liable for his own wrongful acts and one does not incur any liability for the acts done by others. In certain cases , however, vicarious liability , that is the liability , that is the liability of one person for the act done by another person, may arise. The common examples of such liability are: 1. Liability of the principal for the tort of his agent. 2. Liability of partners of each others tort. 3. Liability of the master for the tort of his tort. Law Of Torts R.K. Bangia , SIXTEENTH EDITION 2002 CH 4 PG 83

It has three types of business relationships: 1. Employer and Employee 2. Principal and agent 3. Partners. Application:

Alan owed a duty of care to UCC and he breached that duty that he owed, which resulted in causing harm to Samantha and syd, which enabled them to claim damages for their loss. The principal which is involved here is that, you must take care to avoid acts and omission which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. (Lord Artkin) Now, UCC is found to be vicariously liable for Alans negligence, UCC is an employer and Alan is an employee which shows a relationship between them where an employer

will be liable for his employees act of negligence which arises out of the course of his employment. Therefore its UCCs legal responsibility to pay compensation to Samantha and syd as they suffered a loss because of their employee Alan.

PART 2 Dons bakery on the legal implications for its claim against Syd in Connection with the lost contract with him? The area of Law involved Breach of Contract Defining the area of law Breach of Contract means any of the two parties fails to perform his part of the contract or his act makes it impossible to perform his obligation under the contract. (P C Tulsian , 2000) The legal rules 1. Failing to perform as promised. 2. Making it impossible for the other party to perform. 3.Making it known that there is an intention not to perform.

LEGAL RULES FOR THE CASE STUDY The legal rule for the case will be:

DONS bakery and Syd were mixed up in a daily contract ,in which , that day Syd had planned for cake and bread delivery. That day an accident took place on the straight street , Syd cancelled his order telling to Dons bakery that this daily contract is frustrated. Dons bakery had suffered the loss as they had already equipped the contract and now they can sue Syd as it was a legally bound Contract. Dons bakery can sue SYD on the basis of breach of contract as Syd fa iled to complete. CONCLUSION By studying this case we bring to a close that the law of tort implicated is negligence, vicarious liability and breach of contract. So its UCCS legal requirement to pay the compensation to Samantha and Syd otherwise they can take serious action against UCC.

Appendix 1
This is a case which is related to our case. Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963) HL D the post office employed workmen who took a break, leaving a manhole covered by a small tent with a paraffin lamp at each corner. C, one of two boys aged 8 & 10 took one of these lamps into the tent. One of them tripped, the lamp fell into the manhole and caused an explosion injuring one boy. Held: The accident was caused by a known source of danger and that made it foreseeable even though the way in which it happened was unexpected.

An accident to a child through burns, was reasonably foreseeable, and the future fact that the development of the accident as it actually happened (viz, the occurrence of the explosion) could not reasonably have been foreseen did not absolve the defendants from liability, and accordingly C was entitled to recover damages for negligence.

http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod3a/aqa/_cases_tort_3damage.htm