2019 ZA Question 9 – MIX (Def)
Lisa is a probationary police officer with the Essex Constabulary. While undergoing instruction in vehicle
response driving, she is ordered by her instructor Max to drive at high speed down a country lane with blue
lights flashing and the siren sounding. On a sharp bend, their car collides with a van driven by Pete, who is on
his way to a meeting with two friends, at which they planned to download and then send child pornography
using Pete’s laptop. Pete is killed, leaving behind his partner Diana. Max, who is not wearing his seatbelt, hits
the windscreen and suffers concussion and a broken foot, while Lisa sustains facial and eye injuries. Her eye
injuries are made worse because she is wearing contact lenses, which are ruined in the accident. Advise the
parties.
In advising, L will bring action against P for his reckless driving which result in L sustains facial and eye injuries
and D as the estate of P will bring action against L for her reckless driving which resulted in P dead and M will
bring action against L and P for their reckless driving which result M suffers concussion and a broken foot. In
order for action to be successful. All 3 parties will first need to establish the tort of negligence against potential
Defendants. According to Lochgelly Iron v Mc Mullan, All 3 parties will need to prove on a balance of probabilities
that there is an existing duty of care and the defendant breached it, causing some damage to them and the
damage is not to remote.
Frist issue whether the defendant owes a duty of care to claimants?
According to Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, court will consider what has been decided
previously and follow the precedents. Is no decided precedent, court will consider the closest analogies in the
existing law and weight up the reasons for and against imposing liability (incremental approach). However, court
will resort to Caparo test (ie. foreseeability, proximity, just, fair and reasonable) only where it is invited to depart
from precious authority (novel situation).
As a driver, who do you owe a duty of care to? Well in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, court held although
manufacture and consumer may be in different part of world and never meet before, the duty is owed as
manufacture able to foresee that any negligence on his part with regarding to the manufacturing of product
would ultimately affect his consumer. Therefore, in applying this principle, it would appear that in the case of a
driver, a duty is owed to all other road users. The standard of care owed to other road users is that of a
reasonable driver. This was described in Nettleship V Weston as the standard to be expected of a competent
and experienced driver.
Applying to the fact, P and L are driver thus owes duty of care to each other and in relation to M as passenger,
P and L owes duty of care to the passenger as well. Thus, duty of care is establish.
Second issue whether the defendant breach the duty of care to claimant?
This will be based on whether they will be judged based on the reasonable man standard or professional body
standard. It is clear that driver definitely falls under reasonable man standard and thus the question is whether
L and P fall below the standard of care expected of him. (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks). This is an objection
test which does not take into account defendant’s characteristics (Glassgrow Corp v Muir).
Applying to the fact, driving recklessly definitely fall below the standard of care. Thus, breach establish.
Third issue whether the breach of duty by the defendant cause the damage to claimant?
The claimant’s need to satisfy the but for test in Barnett v Chelsea. The question to be asked will be but for the
D’s reckless driving would the accident occurs and claimant would be suffered damages. The answer is no, thus
causation establish.
Lisa is a probationary police officer with the Essex Constabulary. While undergoing instruction in vehicle
response driving, she is ordered by her instructor Max to drive at high speed down a country lane with blue
lights flashing and the siren sounding. On a sharp bend, their car collides with a van driven by Pete, who is on
his way to a meeting with two friends, at which they planned to download and then send child pornography
using Pete’s laptop. Pete is killed, leaving behind his partner Diana. Max, who is not wearing his seatbelt, hits
the windscreen and suffers concussion and a broken foot, while Lisa sustains facial and eye injuries. Her eye
injuries are made worse because she is wearing contact lenses, which are ruined in the accident. Advise the
parties.
In advising, L will bring action against P for his reckless driving which result in L sustains facial and eye injuries
and D as the estate of P will bring action against L for her reckless driving which resulted in P dead and M will
bring action against L and P for their reckless driving which result M suffers concussion and a broken foot. In
order for action to be successful. All 3 parties will first need to establish the tort of negligence against potential
Defendants. According to Lochgelly Iron v Mc Mullan, All 3 parties will need to prove on a balance of probabilities
that there is an existing duty of care and the defendant breached it, causing some damage to them and the
damage is not to remote.
Frist issue whether the defendant owes a duty of care to claimants?
According to Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, court will consider what has been decided
previously and follow the precedents. Is no decided precedent, court will consider the closest analogies in the
existing law and weight up the reasons for and against imposing liability (incremental approach). However, court
will resort to Caparo test (ie. foreseeability, proximity, just, fair and reasonable) only where it is invited to depart
from precious authority (novel situation).
As a driver, who do you owe a duty of care to? Well in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, court held although
manufacture and consumer may be in different part of world and never meet before, the duty is owed as
manufacture able to foresee that any negligence on his part with regarding to the manufacturing of product
would ultimately affect his consumer. Therefore, in applying this principle, it would appear that in the case of a
driver, a duty is owed to all other road users. The standard of care owed to other road users is that of a
reasonable driver. This was described in Nettleship V Weston as the standard to be expected of a competent
and experienced driver.
Applying to the fact, P and L are driver thus owes duty of care to each other and in relation to M as passenger,
P and L owes duty of care to the passenger as well. Thus, duty of care is establish.
Second issue whether the defendant breach the duty of care to claimant?
This will be based on whether they will be judged based on the reasonable man standard or professional body
standard. It is clear that driver definitely falls under reasonable man standard and thus the question is whether
L and P fall below the standard of care expected of him. (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks). This is an objection
test which does not take into account defendant’s characteristics (Glassgrow Corp v Muir).
Applying to the fact, driving recklessly definitely fall below the standard of care. Thus, breach establish.
Third issue whether the breach of duty by the defendant cause the damage to claimant?
The claimant’s need to satisfy the but for test in Barnett v Chelsea. The question to be asked will be but for the
D’s reckless driving would the accident occurs and claimant would be suffered damages. The answer is no, thus
causation establish.
