got this problem question and don't know how to tackle it.
David is in charge of inspecting racing cars at a racecourse in Nottingham, operated by
Nottingham Racing Club. He is a former professional racer who is called upon by the racing club from time to time to inspect all cars before certain races. In a race in January, two drivers of cars that he had inspected are involved in accidents. Sunil suffered injury when he lost control of the car at a sharp curve. The accident was caused by faulty brakes. However David does not normally check the brakes, but only that the engines comply with the racing regulations. This is common practice among racing inspectors. Robert’s car skids out of control during the final lap and crashes into a barrier, injuring Paula, a spectator. Paula was not in an official viewing area because she
had slipped into the racecourse unlawfully without paying the admission fee. It transpires that Robert had an unauthorised engine and that David had accepted a bribe from him in exchange for which the car was passed as suitable to race even if the engine was highly dangerous and its failure led to Robert losing control of the car.
Sunil and Paula seek damages for their injuries and Robert seeks damages for his broken car. They sue David in negligence. Advise David.
Does David owe them a duty of care? Cos i was thinking about omission... as in this case, David failed to inspect the brakes, so would that amount to omission? if that's the case then there's no duty of care?
if omission doesn't apply, then would the common practice save him from liability for Sunil? because according to Gray v Stead, common practice should exclude him from being negligent?
Any help is appreciated!!!
Over the Easter break