Writing assignment who am i Essay
Bertram can be held responsible for any resulting injuries to both him and Albert if this is proved during the case. Let’s get to the claim against Albertan car insurance company. Under the common law of negligence, victims and their families can bring claims against the drunk driver for damages. To bring a negligence claim, Bertram must typically prove: The driver owed a duty to others to operate the car in a safe manner The driver breached the duty The driver’s breach caused injury to the plaintiff The plaintiff suffered compensable damages A drunk driver has the same duty of care as a sober driver.
Intoxication is not a defense to failing to act as a reasonable driver would in the same circumstances. The very act of driving drunk is enough to prove that Albert breached his or her duty to the plaintiff. In this case, the plaintiff still must prove that the drunk driver actions are the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries, that is, but for the acts of the drunk driver, Bertram would not have been injured. For the claim against the newly qualified doctor, here it is purely Negligence or “Medical Negligence” from the doctor who examined him at first. Bertram can take the actor to the civil court for compensation.
In order to bring a successful claim against the doctor, Bertram has to prove on the balance of probabilities: Breach of duty – that the treatment was such that no reasonable practitioner would have delivered that care Causation – that the breach of duty or negligence caused or contributed to the injury, loss or damage suffered, and that the patient would not have suffered that injury without the breach Both these tests have to be established to prove negligence. It’s crucial to get expert legal advice as soon as possible after the medical negligence took place.
This will mean the proper steps can be taken to investigate his case fully at the earliest opportunity. Some evidence relies on memory, and it’s always best to record these details when they are fresh. QUESTION 1 CONTINUED The Claimant’s loss is then assessed in terms of quantum and the compensation is money – nothing more and nothing less. CASE 2: SALLY Sally did not suffer any physical injury from the accident. But she has lost her stall and suffering from shock, insomnia and depression. I will advise Sally to claim on the clauses of: Damage – Remoteness of damage Economic Loss
Nervous shock Damage & Economic Loss Here, Albert owes Sally, the claimant, a duty of care and has acted in breach of that duty. For me, the damage was foreseeable to her stall. Albertan breach of his duty of care caused damages to Sally’s stall. She can claim for the cost of reinstating her stall and loss of earnings due to not being able to work after the accident till the day she resumes work. Nervous Shock Due to Albert being drunk, he owed a duty of care to Sally, as the accident was foreseeable due to his act of driving even being drunk.
Sally can be classified as primary victim due to Albertan negligence. To succeed in a tort of negligence action, the claimant must prove three issues. Firstly, the defendant owed them a duty of care. Secondly, the defendant was in breach of that duty. Thirdly, the claimant suffered damage caused by the defendant’s breach. All this seems to be very strong against Albert here. CASE 3: ANNA Anna, being a witness to the accident but was a little far away from the accident scene. Being a stallholder also, she suffered shock, insomnia and depression.
For this claim, I will consider psychiatric injury but the court will take into account hat Anna is not the primary victim due to Albertan negligence even that she might fear for her safety now. She did not suffer from physical injury or loss to her business. Proximity would normally require the claimant to be physically close to the accident in time and space. There might be a causal link between the accident and the psychiatric injury of Anna. Also, Anna witnessed the accident by her own unaided senses. It was foreseeable that psychiatric injury will occur because of the defendant’s, Albert, negligence.