I have nearly finished my first year of law of tort, Law undergraduate, though I'm finding it quite difficult to get to grips with just wondered if anyone could not tell me the answer to the question scenario below but just a guide line on how to answer it..?!
Jeremy is a pupil at the Knavesborough Academy a fee paying public school. Jeremy is from a single parent family and his mother, Laura, works as a waitress on a zero hours contract and has very low average earnings. Nevertheless, Jeremy achieved the top mark in a scholarship exam and as a result does not have to pay fees. Jeremy is frequently bullied by boys from wealthy families both through verbal and physical abuse. Jeremy’s mother has sought help from the headmaster, Maxwell, on numerous occasions to protect Jeremy but nothing has been done to prevent the bullying the scale of which has intensified.
When Jeremy is leaving school one day a number of the boys jostle him quite roughly and Jeremy falls back against a stone wall hitting his head with some force. Jeremy falls to the floor unconscious banging his head once more, and appears not to be breathing. A teacher alerts Maxwell and rather than wait for an ambulance Maxwell places the unconscious Jeremy in his own car to drive him to Norheantun Hospital. He also instructs the teacher to telephone the hospital and Laura.
Maxwell, trying to reach the hospital as quickly as possible, drives in excess of 80 m.p.h. Maxwell loses control of the car going round a tight bend, brakes sharply trying to avoid an oncoming car and skids onto the pavement and demolishes a lamp post owned by Old Heantun Borough Council. The lamp post will cost £2,200 to replace.
In the collision with the lamp post Maxwell hits his head on the side window and is bruised and bleeding when he arrives at Norheantun Hospital.
Doctors at Norheantun Hospital declare Jeremy dead. A recently qualified doctor cleans up Maxwell’s cut head and injects Maxwell with antibiotics to avoid infection. The doctor fails to ask Maxwell whether he has any allergy to antibiotics. In fact Maxwell does have such an allergy and within a few moments suffers a massive allergic reaction and dies and doctors are unable to resuscitate him.
Jeremy’s mother, Laura, on receiving the phone call from Knavesborough Academy goes straight to Norheantun Hospital in time to see Jeremy being taken into Accident and Emergency. Laura was present when Jeremy was declared dead and subsequently suffers from extreme grief which has developed into severe depression.
Consider the possibility of success of the following potential claims:
1. A claim on behalf of Jeremy by his mother against Knavesborough Academy for Jeremy’s fatal injuries.
2. A claim by Old Heantun Borough Council against Maxwell’s estate for the cost of a replacement lamp post.
3. A claim by Maxwell’s estate against Norheantun Hospital for Maxwell’s death.
4. A claim by Laura against Knavesborough Academy for her psychiatric injury.
Law of torts Watch
- Thread Starter
- 17-04-2016 21:56
- 31-01-2017 20:58
1.The school owed a duty of care. The P has a good case.
2.By driving at such speeds, the D would have and should have presumed the natural consequences of his actions. He was risking his life, Jeremy's life (assuming he was alive at the time) and lives of public at large. Motive I think is irrelevant; a good motive doesn't make an illegal act legal and vice versa.
3.P's heirs or legal representatives will fail for it wasn't foreseeable. But if they had his history or could have known with ordinary diligence it'd be negligence.
4.No. The academy could not have foreseen her suffering from psychiatric injury. It's too remote. The law says Immediate and proximate not remote cause is considered.
Edit: 3. The doctor owed a duty of care, he should have asked if he had any allergies, this was negligence. No defense of volenti non fit injuria can apply; no one can consent to negligence.
I could be wrong about it, it's way past my bed time. I am just trying to help.Last edited by Man1091988; 31-01-2017 at 21:02.