Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Court Case Summary
This is a court case of a subcontractor on a building site where personal injuries were sustained by a lorry driver. The driver sustained serious injuries when he fell on the site. This accident was due to a poor system which was put in place to make sure the area was clear of mud. The contractor of the company was to blame for failing to setup a system that would take care of the situation. The lorry driver was 25 per cent to blame since he had negligent on his side as well. He should have taken more caution while walking on the muddy surface. The court was to resolve whether the defendant (contractor) and the second defendant (the subcontractor) were liable for personal injuries sustained by the lorry driver (claimant) in the accident.
This dispute was determined at the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division before Mr. Justice Foskett. The injury was sustained on the 16th December, 2004. The main issue is about the negligence of responsibilities from both the claimant and the defenders who both had representatives in the court.
Facts of the Case
Bailii (2010) has details that the accident occurred outside a site that was under clearance for a building. The claimant was an HGV driver; an employee of A & A transport. On the day of the accident, the driver had driven to the site to collect a load of shuttering. Through the maneuvering of the lorry, the claimant got out of the lorry and injured himself. The case ended up with a judgment conclusion of 75% of the damages to the claimant. The other issues would be dealt with by writing submissions or further oral hearing if needed.
Negligence Aspects
Currie and Cameron (2000) explains that the laws governing issues of negligence requires persons to conduct in a manner that is acceptable by certain standards. In any case the rules are violated; compensation must be given to the injured person depending on the nature of injury caused. It is evident that the site was developed as a housing estate comprising two areas; one of which was the main area. The site had a controversial history due to its use as a sewerage farm. Its drainage system was poor and fully contaminated. This was even a health concern to the local residents. Proper planning was neglected as the site was being managed.
There was also negligence in the establishment of the boundaries of the site. Though the boundaries were well defined, the mud could still spill over into the adjacent environment. This was one of the circumstances that contributed to the accident. The construction of the entrance was not well planned since the space for negotiating a corner was so tight. There was also the presence of bollards at the road centre near the entrance to the site and some cones in the entrance. This is negligence since it is this that led to the accident.
Leaving the deposits on the site and the pavement on the opposite side was negligence. Those deposits were hazardous since they were covered by mud and water. After the accident, it is not clear whether it is true that the constructor’s did not see the driver lying on the ground. This is because the farm had no health measures to deal with such emergencies and accidents. It is difficult to believe that no one witnessed the driver lying on the ground. Due to unplanned nature of such accidents and emergencies, there should be immediate attention to life threatening heath related issues for stabilization in the firm.
Failure to replace the wheel-washer was negligence since measures should have been put in place to ensure site materials were not deposited on the highway and footway. A good system would have hosed the wheels before it left the site. Deakin, Johnston and Markesinis (2008) points out that a system in an industry should be efficient to avoid accidents. A contribution of negligence was evident in the second defendant since he was responsible for the day to day responsibility of all the site activities. However, Van Gerven et al. (2001) points out that one cannot receive full compensation if he or she also contributes to the negligence.
References
Bailii (2010), England and Wales High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) Decisions, Wales. Web.
Currie, S & Cameron, D (2000), Your Law: Nelson Thomson Learning, Melbourne, Prentice Hall.
Deakin, S, Johnston, A & Markesinis, B (2008), Markesinis & Deakin’s Tort Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Van Gerven, W, et al. (2001), Cases, Materials and Text on National, Supranational and International Tort Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.