Civil Litigation Course work Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Civil Litigation Course work - Essay ExampleScott was driving on. He rammed into Mr. Scotts vehicle on the passengers side. According to the police reports, Mr. Marshall was not wearing a helmet as per the traffic regulations. Mr. Scott on the other hand though drunk, his status was not beyond the level-headed alcohol limit. However, he was charged and found guilty of a traffic offence as he was talking over the ph ace while driving contrary to section 3 of the itinerary dealings Act. Mr. Marshall sued Mr. Scott for the injuries sustained. The aim of this report to is determine if Mr. Scott is liable to pay damages to Mr. Marshall and what possible defenses he could actually rely on to escape liability. 3 Issues and Law 3 The first issue that arises in this case is the need to determine whether Mr. Scott is guilty of careless driving under section 3 of the Road duty Act and if this would necessarily prejudice his civil liability. In this regard, the proceedings under Road Traffic Act do not prejudice his civil case. According to Keenan (2011, p. 53), the outcome of a criminal accomplish does not affect the outcome of civil case. The next issue in this case is the issue of liability. The capitulum is whether Mr. Scott was liable to pay either damages to Mr. Marshall for the injuries sustained. Sustaining injuries in an accident does not give one an automatic right to recover damages. The question to be rigid is which company was liable for the accident. One party may be fully liable or both parties might be liable heart and soul that each party is partially liable. The somebody claiming damages for personal injury after a ride vehicle accident has to prove that the other party was negligent. This means that Mr. Marshall has to prove beyond bonny doubt that whatever damage that resulted from the accident was wholly or partially the fault of Mr. Scott. 4 In this case, one of the initial things to be determined is whether Scott was negligent. Under the la w of torts, Howarth (2006, p. 147) indicates that a person is negligent when he or she is in breach of the legal duty of care that brings damage to the claimant. Negligence as per Alderson B in the case of Blyth v Birmingham Water Works constitutes omission by a reasonable person who guided by ordinary consideration fails to do something and as a result causes injury to some other person. The same principle of the tort of heedlessness applies to the motor vehicle accident. Liability in this respect is determined on the basis of the negligent party. Under the law of torts, there are three requirements that need to be fulfilled. The first requirement that postulate to be fulfilled for a claim to succeed is that the party claiming negligence needs to establish a duty of care (Smith, 1983, p. 44). 4 In light of the case, Marshall needs to establish that Scott owed him a duty of care. As a general rule, any one driving on a public road has a duty to the public and where one chooses to drive, they should be able to secure the motor vehicle so that it does not harm other people. In the instant case, Mr. Scott by rectitude of driving on a public road had a duty to control it to stop that any person on the same road was not hurt. Even if it was the fault of the other party Mr. Scott should eat taken all the reasonable measure to control the happening of the accident. This is to his disadvantage. However the other party alike being a public road user is burdened with the same duty of care to ensure that he controls the motor