TORT LAW 1045
FORMATIVE COURSEWORK
RACHEL HANNA
This scenario refers to the law linked to the tort of negligence. There are probable claims that
may arise out of this accident. All parties were injured in this accident. Clo broke her spine and is
likely to be paralyzed for life; Oru suffered a broken toe, and Burch whiplash. Considering these
events, Oru is likely to be liable for negligence, due to breach of duty of care. We must
establish prima facie- negligence
Both Clo and Burch were injured, I will discuss the claims that might arise from this
Negligence is explained as a breach of legal duty of care owed by the Defendant to the Claimant
resulting in damage to Claimant not wanted by the Defendant1
According to the conformable law in this case, conferring to Donoghue v Stevenson2 - there are 3
fundamental elements to establishing liability for negligence; one is to establish a duty of care;
two is to establish a breach of the duty of care; and three is to prove that the breach is indeed the
cause of the loss3
Each element will be critically analyzed in turn
Oru v Clo
the first issue that arises is did Oru have a duty of care towards Clo? The duty of care can be
defined as a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual towards the surrounding persons
4
It is unequivocal that anyone driving a vehicle owes a duty of care to all other road users as seen
in Donoghue v Stevenson 5. He must have been aware of the foreseeable harm he might cause to
others by this act of negligence, which means Oru is obliged to meet the standard level of duty of
care to all other road user. Accordingly, it is established that Oru did in fact owe a duty of care
to Clo, as a road user.
The second issue that we will be discussing is the breach of duty of care by Oru; the breach of
duty of care is when one person or an organization has a duty of care toward another person or
organization but fails to live up to that standard6 we will ask the question of
whether Oru exercised a reasonable standard of care of a competent driver. To establish the
breach of duty of care; and burden of proof we need to establish that Oru fell below the
1
Winfield PH and others, Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort (Sweet & Maxwell 2014)
2
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL
3
Horsey K and Rackley E, “Tort of Negligence,” Tort law (Oxford University Press 2019)
4
Ibid 2
5
Ibid 2
6
Ibid 2
FORMATIVE COURSEWORK
RACHEL HANNA
This scenario refers to the law linked to the tort of negligence. There are probable claims that
may arise out of this accident. All parties were injured in this accident. Clo broke her spine and is
likely to be paralyzed for life; Oru suffered a broken toe, and Burch whiplash. Considering these
events, Oru is likely to be liable for negligence, due to breach of duty of care. We must
establish prima facie- negligence
Both Clo and Burch were injured, I will discuss the claims that might arise from this
Negligence is explained as a breach of legal duty of care owed by the Defendant to the Claimant
resulting in damage to Claimant not wanted by the Defendant1
According to the conformable law in this case, conferring to Donoghue v Stevenson2 - there are 3
fundamental elements to establishing liability for negligence; one is to establish a duty of care;
two is to establish a breach of the duty of care; and three is to prove that the breach is indeed the
cause of the loss3
Each element will be critically analyzed in turn
Oru v Clo
the first issue that arises is did Oru have a duty of care towards Clo? The duty of care can be
defined as a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual towards the surrounding persons
4
It is unequivocal that anyone driving a vehicle owes a duty of care to all other road users as seen
in Donoghue v Stevenson 5. He must have been aware of the foreseeable harm he might cause to
others by this act of negligence, which means Oru is obliged to meet the standard level of duty of
care to all other road user. Accordingly, it is established that Oru did in fact owe a duty of care
to Clo, as a road user.
The second issue that we will be discussing is the breach of duty of care by Oru; the breach of
duty of care is when one person or an organization has a duty of care toward another person or
organization but fails to live up to that standard6 we will ask the question of
whether Oru exercised a reasonable standard of care of a competent driver. To establish the
breach of duty of care; and burden of proof we need to establish that Oru fell below the
1
Winfield PH and others, Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort (Sweet & Maxwell 2014)
2
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL
3
Horsey K and Rackley E, “Tort of Negligence,” Tort law (Oxford University Press 2019)
4
Ibid 2
5
Ibid 2
6
Ibid 2
