1.

a) As it has been stated that the accident was Sarahs fault, it is likely that Anne will be successful for her claim. Sarah owes a duty of care towards Anne as they are both citizens who use the roads as a means of transport and because of the accident, it can be seen that Sarah has breached such duty of care towards Anne and therefore is likely to be prosecuted because of her actions. The principle of duty of care was highlighted in the case of Donoghue against Stevenson (1932), which states that a person ought to take reasonable care to avoid acts, or omissions where one can foresee that these acts are likely to injure another. This case does not directly deal with a physical injury but that of PTSD, which can fall into two distinct categories; Primary victims whereby one suffers traumatic stress through their own actions and Secondary victims whereby one suffers traumatic stress because of the fear for the safety of another person. Anne will be known as a Primary victim as she genuinely feared for her own safety because of the actions of Sarah who will become liable in this account. b) Bertha will be considered (as stated above) as a Secondary victim as she has no clear tie to Anne (the victim) and Bertha has stated that she began to suffer PTSD after visiting the scene. This was highlighted in the case of Alcock against The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1992), which denotes that a Secondary victim must have a form of connection to the accident in question, visually, audibly, or by viewing its immediate aftermath, not through any other median such as the television, radio or newspaper. Which means that the defendant would only be able to recover damages if it can be proved that she was proximate to the event or incident. For this reason Berthas employers should not be held liable. c) This account would again refer to the case of Alcock against The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1992) and as Carol at no point actually viewed or was proximate the event she would be classed as a Secondary victim and as Carol suffered PTSD through viewing an image in the paper, I suggest that she would not be successful in pursuing a claim against Sarah. d) As discussed before; Sarah owes a duty of care to other road uses and as her driving caused the accident Daniella may be able to recover costs through her mandatory insurance. As she is also claiming for distress Daniellas case would have to be supported by the case of Attia against British Gas (1998) where the claimant was entitled to compensation due to the emotional distress caused by watching her house burn down. Obviously Daniella is distressed or sad about the loss of her 80,000 Mercedes but unfortunately this would not stand up in court, as sadness would not be recognized as medically diagnosed

illness. 2. a) Brown Ltd is likely to be liable for the injuries, which resulted from that of the defective ladder. Employers owe a duty of care to their employees firstly for providing properly trained and sufficient staff and secondly for ensuring that all materials and plant used by their workers are safe for use, which can be categorized into the tort of negligence. It will be argued that Brown Ltd have not provided a safe or suitable place of work for its employees thus a claim of negligence in common law is most likely. Brown Ltd might be subjected to the rules laid out by the Health and Safety at Work Act, which would subject Brown Ltd to criminal law as apposed to general law. Brown Ltd could be held accountable for breach of duty and also because of their negligence under common law. Brown Ltd would be able to argue contributory negligence. This would be supported by the fact that Derek may be to blame for crawling onto what has been described as a hazardous roof and falling. They may be able to argue that he should of used his own judgment and used caution as per Brown Ltds Safety at Work Act. Contributory negligence will only be seen as a plea to support Dereks case and Brown Ltd would only be able to claim contribution in respect to this case. The ladder has been described as defective, therefore Green Ltd may be liable under the judgments outlined through the Civil Liability Act 1978 which gives the right to pursue another party who are partially responsible for the damages caused.

b) The manufacturer would owe a duty of care to the eventual user of their product and for this reason Derek and Albert may be able to claim against Brown Ltd if they are bale to prove that it was Brown Ltd who should of owed a duty of care in supplying the workforce with a ladder. If Derek or Albert were to be successful in their claim against Brown Ltd, Brown Ltd may be able to claim against Green Ltd because of a breach of contract in relation to the sale of a faulty ladder, Derek and Brown would be required to prove that the defective ladder caused the loss and not just that of a breach of contract. However, the question does not state whether the defective ladder was manufactured by Green Ltd, just that they supplied it, for this reason Green Ltd may be able to claim a contribution under this assumption. They would argue that although the defective ladder contributed to the injury, Derek used his own judgment in stepping out on to the dangerous roof thus breaking the chain events which would place a certain about of blame

on Derek for his own injury. c) White Ltd are owners of the site and therefore will owe a common duty of care to anyone who ventures onto the premises, they will be required to take reasonable care for the purpose of their work, which is outlined in the Occupiers Liability Act (1957). Derek will most probably find it difficult to make a claim against White Ltd as it should be assumed that a roofer will be aware of the inherent dangers involved when carrying out his specialized work. White Ltd might want to try and seek a reduction in liability as they might argue that this lies on green Ltd for the supply of the defective ladder and then to Brown Ltd who owed a duty of care in providing a safe and hazard free work place. I would suggest that because of contributory negligence, Derek shares a proportion of the liability as a certain degree of the negligence lies with his poor judgment and not just that of a defective ladder or breach of contract.