See The Attachment

Law and International Law

Name

Affiliation

Date

Law and International Law

In the case study of Patrick, who got his infant nephew injured in a road accident, due to his negligence towards the child, a number of people got involved and injured in the case. First of all, the nephew got shocked when he came in front of Jackson's car. Secondly, Amy, the mother of another child, tried to save the kid and got herself injured while colliding with the car. Thirdly, Jackson's car could not keep the balance after pulling the breaks suddenly and getting pushed by Amy and ended up hitting the park equipment. Due to that, a child broke his leg. After that, the person behind Jackson pulled his breaks and collided with a tree, getting a little head injury and harming the tree as well.

The four key elements of the tort of negligence include duty, breach, causation, and damages. Duty means that the defendant had the legal duty of being saved by the plaintiff, according to the circumstances. Breach means that the defendant has not played his/her part according to his/her duty and failed to ensure the better outcome of the scenario. Causation means that the defendant has caused any kind of injury or harm to the plaintiff due to his or her actions. Damages mean that the plaintiff had to face the damages of any kind due to the negligence of the defendant. When considering the amount of compensation paid to an injured party for any negligent act, the court generally aims to achieve some outcomes for the plaintiff, which includes the relationship between the two involved parties. In addition to it, it also considers the nature of the obligation, measures of the damages, as well as the remoteness or the causation of the damages.

The actions available in relation to the tort of negligence involve the duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. There are more than one plaintiffs, as well as defendants in the case, who had to suffer due to the negligence of each other. First of all, Patrick is the defendant as he committed the negligence element of duty of care towards his nephew. He was not in a good mental health condition; still, he took his nephew out for a walk in the park and failed to take care of him, due to which he was about to get hit by a car. Secondly, Amy is the defendant as well as the plaintiff, under the elements of causation and damages. She is the defendant in the way that Patrick failed to look after his nephew, and she had to step up in order to save the kid. If he had done a good job and taking care of the child, she would not have got involved in the case. She received damages in the form of physical injury. On the other hand, she is the plaintiff under the negligence element of causation. She was aware of the fact that the Jackson was driving within the speed limit and had seen the child, as well as he was trying to save the child. She also tried to save the child and ended up hitting the car. She should have acted in a more careful manner and should have avoided hitting the car. The next defendant, as well as the plaintiff, is Jackson under the negligence element of damages. He is the plaintiff in the way that he was driving within the speed limit, as well as tried his best to avoid the collision, however, ended up destroying the property of park and hurting a child. If Patrick had looked after the child, the scenario would not have taken place. Jackson is the defendant due to the element of causation. He tried to pull breaks and ended up hitting the park property. He knew that an accident was about to happen, so he should have acted more carefully and tried to move in some direction where he could have avoided hitting the park property, which actually hurt a child. The next defendant is the child who broke his leg, after the swing was hit by the car of Jackson, under the element of damages, as he faced physical injury. The last defendant is Rump who lost the balance due to the collision in front of him and got a head injury, under the element of damages (Best, Barnes, & Kahn-Fogel, 2018).

Three Australian cases that may be considered in any of the negligence actions according to this scenario include Bankstown City Council v Zraika; Roads and Maritime Services v Zraika [2016] NSWCA 51, Bryant v Competitive Foods Australia Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] QDC 258 and the case of Lee v Carlton Crest Hotel (Sydney) Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1280. The cases relate to the incident in the way that the plaintiffs of these cases faced some injury, as well as other damages due to the negligence of the defendant and if the defendant had acted more carefully, the situation could have been avoided.

The relevant legislation which the Western Australian Court might consider in deciding any of the actions located in the above scenario includes the tort of negligence as well as the contract law. The tort of negligence is applicable because the defendant failed to act more carefully and avoid the happening of the scenario at multiple times. In addition to it, every defendant played a part in increasing the impact and injuries caused due to the scenario. The contract law is applicable to the scenario in the way that the parties are not related to each other, as well as did not share any ill feelings towards each other, prior to the incident, which would have become their reason of causing damage to the other party. In addition to it, all the defendants have suffered in one or the other way, so it is better to solve the scenario by signing the contract and paying for the damages (Goldberg, Sebok, & Zipursky, 2016).

Some of the benefits of having a tort of negligence compared to just using contract law include the fact that the tort of negligence considers in detail the damages caused to the parties involved, as well as assessing the scenario how the involved parties could have played d their role in avoiding or minimizing the damages. On the other hand, the contract law mostly focuses on the type of relationship between the parties and asses the damages accordingly, while giving preference to the negligence or breach of duty committed by the parties (Burrows, 2018). In addition to it, contract law becomes applicable in the scenario when the involved parties are related to each other through some contract, for example, the employee and employer, or the medical or any other service provider and their clients. The negligence committed and damages caused in such scenarios are death by using the contract law. While the tort of negligence can also be used in such scenarios, it is specifically used for the parties who are not related or bound to each other.

References

Bankstown City Council v Zraika; Roads and Maritime Services v Zraika [2016] NSWCA 51.

Best, A., Barnes, D. W., & Kahn-Fogel, N. (2018). Basic tort law: cases, statutes, and problems. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.

Bryant v Competitive Foods Australia Pty Ltd & Ors. [2018] QDC 258.

Burrows, A. S. (2018). Contract, Tort, and Restitution—A Satisfactory Division or Not?. In Restitution (pp. 3-53). Routledge.

Goldberg, J. C., Sebok, A. J., & Zipursky, B. C. (2016). Tort Law: Responsibilities and Redress. Aspen Publishers.

Lee v Carlton Crest Hotel (Sydney) Pty Ltd. [2014] NSWSC 1280.