Law can be stated as the rule that defines the aa and procedure of society. It is a system that ensures and regulate the community and individuals to adhere to the will of the state. This report is based on the case problem which depicts the act of negligence by the parties. Apart from this, it also analyses the different elements of negligence with their defenses. It also discusses the defenses that are available to the parties such as contributory negligence.
Whether Jack can bring the claim against Meave or not?
In this case, the Meave wants to reach the post office quickly while driving she receives a call from her friend, and due to this she is not able to observe the road, and that knocked the cyclist. Later on, Meave noticed that Jack, a cyclist was injured and carried to the hospital. Apart from this, it can find that Jack suffered from brain injury and that upset Meave. By observing the facts, it can be analyzed that Jack can bring the claim against the Meave and have right of compensation.
By analyzing the facts of the case, it can be asserted that the Meave is negligent while driving and that represents the negligence of traffic rules. Negligence is the theory that is based on the lawsuits of the car accident. In this, the party is negligent which means he or she behaved carelessly and thoughtlessly that caused the injury to another person. Driver must take care and avoid injury of passengers, pedestrians. They are duty-bound to drive at a reasonable and prudent speed. It also deals with the Road Traffic Act, 1988 that constitutes the offence of speeding and applies to vehicles to on road where the parties can easily have accessed.
It can be stated the law of negligence can be assessed in general terms, and the party should have the duty, actual cause, damages and proximate cause etc. To prove the negligence, it is necessary for the other party to have different elements such as the defendant has a duty for others to exercise the care. The duty can be breached by the act of the defendant, and that results in the damages and injury. There should be an act of causation that will be the consequence of defendant act and omission.
By observing the facts and situations of the case, it can be asserted that while driving the vehicle, the driver should be responsible while encountering the individuals on the road. Apart from this, the law of Ireland uses the imperial system and also set the restrictions and limits according to an hour. In this problem, the Meave was in a hurry and not able to observe the road properly. While driving she receives a call of her friend, and she did not feel able to concentrate on driving, and that leads to an accident. Later on, she realizes that she knocked the cyclist.
The cyclist, Jack was lying on the road, and he was not able to move as he suffers from an injury. By observing this situation, it can be asserted that the Meave was negligent and she acted carelessly behind the wheel or failed to exercise the act with due care and caution.
Whether Jack can bring a claim against Meave or not?
The main issue raises, in this case, is whether Jack can bring the claim against the Meave or not. Yes, the Jack has the right to bring the claim against the Meave as he gets an injury from the act of Meave and that leads to the hams. This act can be termed as the act of negligent as it is the ac of failure to exercise the ethical and appropriate care expected among the different situation and circumstances. Driver must drive at a prudent and reasonable speed. The Meave should drive in the light of existing traffic rules, weather condition so that there will be no chances of an accident (Ogden and Hylton, 2016).
To bring the claim against the left Jack has to prove the certain elements of negligence and that is as follows:
Duty: The foremost liability of the defendant towards the plaintiff is based on the failure of the defendant to fulfil the responsibility. In this case, Meave must drive carefully and abide by the rules and law. These terms are not followed by the Meave, and that leads to negligence. In this case of Dooghue v Stevenson (1932), the principles of duty of care and fault are explained.
Breach of duty: To prove the negligence, it is necessary to prove that the defendant breached his duty towards the plaintiff. The defendant breaches the duty to exercise reasonable care towards its duty. As in this case, Jack must take proper caution while moving, but he did not wear a helmet, and due to this, he suffers from an injury.
Cause in fact: The other rule in the case of negligence is that the plaintiff should prove the actions of defendants and that is the cause of injury. As per the facts, of the case, if the cyclist does not receive the injury due to the acts of meaves then in that situation the Jack is not liable for the compensation (Goudkamp and Nolan, 2019).
Proximate cause: It can be stated that the defendant is liable for that harm that can be foreseen through the act and actions. If the defendant causes the damages that are outside the scope, then, in that case, they are not liable for compensation. In this case, the accident occurred by the act of negligence, and that comes in the ambit of course of transactions. By analyzing this Jack was able to recover the damages from Meave.
Damages: To prove the act of negligence the parties should suffer from the damages and harm. As in this situation, the Jack gets injured, and that leads to brain injury.
By observing the above facts, it can be stated that Meave is not liable for the act of negligence. As per the scenario of the case the Meave was negligent while driving but it can’t be stated that she is totally responsible for her acts. On the other, it can be observed that the Jack which is a cyclist, he did not wear a helmet, if he wears a helmet, then he can be protected from the injury. So the Meave can take the defense of contributory negligence, and in this situation, the Jack is not liable for the damages and compensation (Goudkamp, 2017).
It can also be observed that the accident is not much that severe that leads to the injury of the brain. It can be inevitable that could not be possible, and it can be prevented by the exercise of ordinary skill, care and caution. If the Meave followed the rules of traffic and did not attend the calls while driving, then there will be no chances of an accident. On the other side, if the Jack, cyclist wear the helmet and then perform the act then there will be no accident (Wilson, et. Al., 2019).
By ascertain all the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be advised that Meave should take the proper care and caution while driving. They have to abide by the rules of traffic as it leads to the minimization of inconvenience and other mishaps. Meave should have control towards the vehicle and also use the proper equipment in the vehicle that leads to less accident.
From the above analysis, it can be asserted that in the personal cases, the victim relies on the case of negligence to prove the fault of another party in case of an accident. One of the important reason for a driver can be under the influence of illegal drugs and rash and negligent driving. In this scenario, Meave was careless and did not abide by the rules of traffic, and that leads to an accident.
From the above discussion, it can be noted that negligence is the act of failure to exercise the ethical and appropriate care that can be exercised in different situations. The important thing is that the parties should exercise due and reasonable care in their actions. If anyone suffers the loss that can be caused by the negligence of another party, then they can be able to sue for the compensation and damages. This loss can be in terms of injury, illness, loss etc. Apart from this, it can also be stated that the act of negligence can be assessed through different elements such as actual cause, duty, breach etc.
- Goudkamp, J. and Nolan, D., 2019. Contributory Negligence in the Twenty-First Century. Oxford University Press.
- Goudkamp, J., 2017. The contributory negligence doctrine: four commercial law problems.
- Ogden, B. and Hylton, K.N., 2016. Incentives to Take Care Under Contributory and Comparative Fault. Boston Univ. School of Law, Law and Economics Research Paper, (15-04).
- Wilson, A.B., Chapman, M. and Stott, D.M., 2019. The effect of audit opinion signature on a jury’s perception of negligence. International Journal of Auditing, 23(1), pp.45-56.