|
 |

Alisha |
TORT LAW..PLS HELP!!!?
|
Amanda works as an au-pair with the Thompsons. One evening, when the Thompsons are out, Amanda invites her friend Victoria, who is also an au-pair, to visit her. Victoria has a very old car and mentions that she has been unable to find a spare part for it. Amanda says that Mr Thompson may have something in his workshop in the garden and that she is sure he won’t mind if they have a look. Amanda then takes Victoria out to the workshop. The floor of the workshop is slippery because a large quantity of oil has been spilled on it. Victoria falls and cuts her arm very badly. Her clothes are also ripped and covered in oil. Amanda takes Victoria to hospital in her car, but on the way there the car is hit by George, who was driving negligently. Victoria suffers leg injuries in the crash.
Harriet was just crossing the road when the accident happened and had to jump back onto the pavement to stop her self from getting hurt. She was traumatised and suffered a nervous breakdown through the event.
1. Advise Victoria as to any claim she may have in tort against the Thompsons (50%).
PLS HELP Additional Details This is an assignment. Could you tell me if this has to do with Nuisance?
|
|
Show all answers
Post your answer
|
|

eriverpipe
|
Amanda says that Mr Thompson may have something in his workshop in the garden and that she is sure he won’t mind if they have a look.
This is the key. Amanda is exceeding her duties as an au pair. As an au pair she has no reason to be in the garage, and the Thompsons would not expect their au pair to go into the garage without first consulting them. In inviting Victoria into her employees house without their knowledge again she is outside her rights, and therefore if Victoria has a tort claim against anyone, it must be Amanda.
Was this answer helpful to you? Yes
/ No
|
|

CeciliaM
|
Is this a school work assignment?
Was this answer helpful to you? Yes
/ No
|
|

callumiain2000
|
I think this is an OLA question coupled with employers liability and wouldn't agree that George and Harriet are mere distractors although I do agree that they should be eliminated, George by way of novus actus interveniens and Harriet on the principle of Bourhill v Young with a cautious nod to the egg shell principle which itself should be eliminated by the hyper sensitive claimant defence (I can't remember the case for this, something about special printers paper destroyed in a fire)
Was this answer helpful to you? Yes
/ No
|
|

J P
 |
First, eliminate all the distractors, such as Harriet, and George. The basic issues are whether the Thompsons owed a duty of care to Victoria, and whether the harm suffered was foreseeable. Good luck!
Was this answer helpful to you? Yes
/ No
|
|

emanwelgwent
|
1. So far as I can see nothing in this question relates to Nuisance.
2. The issues you ought to think about in relation to point 1 are: The Occupiers Liability Acts - whether Victoria is a visitor or a trespasser - whether the Thompsons discharged or fulfilled their common duty of care towards her - novus actus interveniens in relation to George - whether Victoria was contributarily negligence (assuming the Thompsons can be held liable at all).
3. If this is an assignment, you probably shouldn't be posting it on YA in the hope of getting an answer. If there is a specific issue you're having difficulty with, then ask about that specifically, setting out what you don't understand. That way answers will be more likely to respond with something other than "do your own homework".
Was this answer helpful to you? Yes
/ No
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Questions
List
|
Answers
|
Last Post |
|
|
|
1 |
21 minutes(s) ago |
|
|
|
5 |
34 minutes(s) ago |
|
|
|
5 |
56 minutes(s) ago |
|
|
|
15 |
3 hour(s) ago |
|
|