11 Pages
2725Words
RESEARCH METHODS LEGAL STUDIES
Get free written samples by our Top-Notch subject experts and Assignment Helper team.
The case between Weston and Nettleship [1971] 2QB 691
INITIAL POST
The case between Weston and Nettleship [1971] 2QB 691 is the English court of the appeal judgment that dealt with the breaching of the duty in the claims of negligence[1]. The decision was taken in the court of the appeal on the 30th of June in the year 1971. The judges as the members of the court were Lord Denning MR, Megaw LJ, and Salmon LJ.
WHAT IS THE RATIO DECIDENDI IN THE CASE?
In thecase between Weston and Nettleship, it was worried about the idea of anobligationto take care that is the very basic component of the offenceregardingcarelessness as the term tort has originated with reference to the case of law in between Stevenson and Donoghue. Negligence is well-defined in the civil code of procedure as it is a tort which is consisted of the break of responsibilityassigned regarding the care that would ultimately result in damage to the plaintiff in any legal proceedings. If it is being considered in terms of when a duty of care is imposed thereby, the statement by Lord Atkins reminds us that the concept must be based upon the premises. The premises stated by him was that one is liable.[2] to take reasonable care so that he could avoid or neglect such omissions or the acts which one could reasonably foresee and that would be likely to result in injuring[3] his neighbour.
This term is also commonly referred to as the principal neighbours, as the premise has also been including the requirements of the proximity, and thus there is the availability of the foreseeability, which is regarding the reasonable duty of the care. If the duty regarding takingcare is supposed to be done by the defendant, so it should be defined that there is a fissure of that responsibility which have taken place. A breach will help demonstrate if the action of the defendant is taken into consideration below the standard of care from those who have been viewed as suitable to such of the responsibilitydone by the defendant.[4] himself.
WHAT ARE THE RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE?
The facts as specified in the case are being surrounded with a claim in respect tothe loss by the plaintiff as an injury which is being grieved by a personduring an accident because of traffic on the road. The claimant or the plaintiff anacquaintance of the respondent or the respondent Weston. Also, he was taught to move towards Nettleship, who is a plaintiff. It was also further revealed that before such kind of the arrangement, the plaintiff had sought some sort of assurances from the respondent that there is some purchasing made of the appropriate insurance in the case of an accident would take. In the third period of the lesson, it was the defendant who has been executing the simple manoeuvre at a very slow speed, but suddenly she was panicked and a little afraid, and this resulted in the crashing of the vehicleby a streetlamp which severely injured plaintiff.
The respondent has been continuously convicted of driving without reasonable attention and reasonable owingattention and devotion. The problems[5] which have arisen by theevent concerning indemnities that were caused; ought to the respondent and then must be apprehended towards the similar standard such as any further driver, obligated the claimant accepted the hazard of the injuryand was respondentonly being accountableashe or she did not havefullcommandon the car.
WHAT, THEREFORE, MUST BE OBITER DICTUM/ DICTA OF THE CASE?
This was done becauseof the element and considering as the coach had known what the student did not possess any so kinds of competence in additionto the skill. This was an argument that was based one with reference to the case of law in between Joyce and The Insurance Commissioner in which it was apprehended that there is a requirement of the duty standard[6] which might be flexible that is changing as per the relations that existbetween twoparties. Also, it was apprehended overall in Nettleship that while doing adeepinvestigation of the relation between the two parties in the case, it was practically as well as theoretically yielding some practical considerations. Even it was known that the fact that there is a standard of care which was owed by the parties and therefore was the chiefemphasis of the event, and the outcome was having a very slighteffecton the rule of tort generally. It is also considered that the exemption is specified in respect to drivers.[7] that is the driver, and also there is a lack of skills which are nature specialists, and that can be concluded as it could possess a good level of the expertise knowledge[8]. It could also help in raising the required standard of care that is owed respectively by the parties.
WOULD A POINT HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE TO THE DECISION TAKEN IN THE CASE?
As the result of the defence, such negligence that is contributory has become one of the most common defences which are being used in this area. Thus, there is a setting of the standard reductions for occurrences.[9] which are very common, for example, if there is a failure in wearing a seat belt by the passenger in a car, or passengers are travelling in such of the carat the time they are alertof the fact that the motorist is drunk.
The judges as members of the court were Lord Denning MR, Megaw LJ, and Salmon LJ have held that if there is an application of the low-level actof the motoristas the trainer should be alertof their being notwell experiencedthatmight be the result of the standardthat are complicated[10]while shifting. This would also help in making an implication. For example, if the patient was very much aware of the lack of experience in his doctor, then that not so experienced doctor owed their patient a very low standard of care. The same happened in this case of the court, and the standard applied to the driver. Thepolicy which has been taken into the consideration[11]has played a very important part in the conclusionmaking regarding the learner motorist was being given with the facility of insurances.
IMPORTANT OBITERS THAT COULD BE FOUND DURING THE DECISION – MAKING OF LORD DENNING MR AND THE ROLESTHAT THEY MAY PLAY DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW
It was also said that there is a high possibility of the combination of the first conclusion as well as the third conclusions, which had to cause the maximuminfluence to the applying of the negligence torn in the aforementioned events. While making the decisionof the defenceregarding volenti[12]beinginapplicable, it was mentioned by Lord Denning that the defendant party became strictlyrestricted as a result of the fluctuations which are significant to defenceregarding such carelessness that is contributory[13].The conclusion which is taken in this event and has been taken into the considering the subsequent provisions which are the legal provision of section number 148 of the Act of Road Traffic in the year 1972. It was done concerning the case law of Pitts v Hunt in which it was held off the defence of violence is notany morepresent in the cases regarding traffic accidents on the road. Rather, it was the result in this eventthat has recommended the respective view regarding the noveldefence of carelessness.[14] Which was contributing, and also was the maximum suitable in the related situation and again there is some kind of fairness which have been responsible for perceiving the principal in an apportionment in a general context.The influence of the event of Nettleship could significantly be emphasized by making theevaluationby comparing the event of Owens and Brimmell with that of the event of Morris and Murray. The shreds of evidence of these twoaforementioned eventswere significantlypracticallyindistinguishable, havingonly onevariance that was Morris being indulged with thetravellernot on the car but a well-litaeroplane. It happened in the case of Morris that the respondent has acknowledged no reimbursement for theirdamagebecause of the phrase defence of violentnot fit toinjure[15].
CONCLUSION
Three different conclusions have made the final result of the aforementioned case: Firstly, it was the Latin term of defence of volenti nonfit injury, was not applicable in this case.Secondly, that there was a responsibilityto take care which was specifically due by the learner that is the driver to the public, which also includes the passengers, and this was required to be measured against the same standard that would be applicable[16] in the case of any other driver.Finally, it was concluded that both the parties that are the instructor as well as the learner, were being jointly held accountable for the casethat occurred and thus, there was a decrease of the loss of around fifty per cent for the negligence[17] which was contributory and also was appropriate. The judgment in the case taken by the judge was mainly centred on the second part of the conclusion, which was also considered as an issue that too the maximumdebatable one. Also, the view provided on thejudicial[18] matter and a situationthat wasthe splitter. Further, this was concluded that the respondent was a failure in taking any measuring up to the standard of care that is as required by the law. With reference to the case-law of Slater v Clay Cross Co. Ltd. As well as Dann v Hamilton, judge L. Salmon have not agreed to such kind of the opinion that would argue regarding the relationship which is special and have created between the instructor as well as the pupil, and it is so that the learner does not be obligatedto the mentor’sresponsibility[19] of driving with the capability as well as a skill which was expected of a driver who is experienced.
References
Ali, Assist Prof Dr Yunus Salahuddin. "CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEGLIGENCE AND HARM IN ENGLISH LAW AN ANALYTICAL STUDY IN COMPARISON WITH IRAQI CIVIL LAW." Journal of college of Law for Legal and Political Sciences 9, no. 35/part 1 (2020).
Ceil, Chenoy. "Tort of Negligence, Caparo Test and Alternative Dispute Resolution." Caparo Test and Alternative Dispute Resolution (the 17th of September, 2019) (2019).
Chaudhary, Ravi Shankar. "Tort: Professional Negligence of Investigating Authorities with its Legal Remedies." Available at SSRN 3688322 (2020).
Chen, Jiahong, Sarvapali Ramchurn, Derek McAuley, Gary Burnett, Richard Hyde, and Didier Hawkey. "Response to the Law Commissions’ Consultation Paper Automated Vehicle–A regulatory framework for automated vehicles."
Dowie, Iwan. "Understanding the standard of care required by nurses." Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain): 1987) 35, no. 4 (2020): 29-34.
Ehrenzweig, Albert A. Negligence without fault. University of California Press, 2020.
Gagan, M. "Legal Implications for NMPs." (2018).
Gagan, Mark. "Legal aspects in nurse prescribing." Nurse Prescribing 16, no. 4 (2018): 187-189.
Griffith, Richard. "Negligence and the standard of care in district nursing." British journal of community nursing 24, no. 1 (2019): 35-37.
Ho, Marcus. "The Question of Autonomy, Liability Attribution and Black Boxes Decision Making." (2020).
Hongliang, Zhang, Chen Chen, and Shi Dongyang. "On the Judicial Application of Predictable Rules in the Tort of Negligence." Journal of Insurance Professional College (2017): 02.
Iqbal, Rehana. "Supervision–whose responsibility?." (2017).
Katsivela, Marel. "The Notion of Injury in the Tort of Negligence (Common Law) and the Personal Extra-Contractual Liability (Civil Law) in Canada: A Comparative Study." CANADIAN BAR REVIEW 96, no. 3 (2018): 2019-26.
Owen, Jordan. "Tearing Up the Patchwork Quilt: An Examination of How, Why and When Liability for Psychiatric Injury in the Tort of Negligence." (2018).
Psarras, Haris. "The generals and particulars of law's abstract judgement and the trouble with responsibility in negligence law." Problema: Anuario de Filosofía y Teoría del Derecho 13 (2019): 23-31.
Stoyanova, Vladislava. "Common law tort of negligence as a tool for deconstructing positive obligations under the European convention on human rights." The International Journal of Human Rights 24, no. 5 (2020): 632-655.
Tamuno, P. S. "The Tort of Negligence and Environmental Justice in the Nigerian Niger Delta." Oil, Gas & Energy Law Journal (OGEL) 15, no. 1 (2017).
Tan, Bernice. "An Unwanted Child: Awards for Damages in the Tort of Negligence." Sing. Comp. L. Rev. (2018): 97.
[1]Stoyanova, Vladislava. "Common law tort of negligence as a tool for deconstructing positive obligations under the European convention on human rights." The International Journal of Human Rights 24, no. 5 (2020): 632-655.
[2]Chaudhary, Ravi Shankar. "Tort: Professional Negligence of Investigating Authorities with its Legal Remedies." Available at SSRN 3688322 (2020).
[3]Tan, Bernice. "An Unwanted Child: Awards for Damages in the Tort of Negligence." Sing. Comp. L. Rev. (2018): 97.
[4]Tamuno, P. S. "The Tort of Negligence and Environmental Justice in the Nigerian Niger Delta." Oil, Gas & Energy Law Journal (OGEL) 15, no. 1 (2017).
[5]Owen, Jordan. "Tearing Up the Patchwork Quilt: An Examination of How, Why and When Liability for Psychiatric Injury in the Tort of Negligence." (2018).
[6]Hongliang, Zhang, Chen Chen, and Shi Dongyang. "On the Judicial Application of Predictable Rules in the Tort of Negligence." Journal of Insurance Professional College (2017): 02.
[7]Psarras, Haris. "The generals and particulars of law's abstract judgement and the trouble with responsibility in negligence law." Problema: Anuario de Filosofía y Teoría del Derecho 13 (2019): 23-31.
[8]Katsivela, Marel. "The Notion of Injury in the Tort of Negligence (Common Law) and the Personal Extra-Contractual Liability (Civil Law) in Canada: A Comparative Study." CANADIAN BAR REVIEW 96, no. 3 (2018): 2019-26.
[9]Ali, Assist Prof Dr Yunus Salahuddin. "CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEGLIGENCE AND HARM IN ENGLISH LAW AN ANALYTICAL STUDY IN COMPARISON WITH IRAQI CIVIL LAW." Journal of the college of Law for Legal and Political Sciences 9, no. 35/part 1 (2020).
[10]Ceil, Chenoy. "Tort of Negligence, Caparo Test and Alternative Dispute Resolution." Caparo Test and Alternative Dispute Resolution (the 17th of September, 2019) (2019).
[11]Chen, Jiahong, Sarvapali Ramchurn, Derek McAuley, Gary Burnett, Richard Hyde, and Didier Hawkey. "Response to the Law Commissions’ Consultation Paper Automated Vehicle–A regulatory framework for automated vehicles."
[12]Ho, Marcus. "The Question of Autonomy, Liability Attribution and Black Boxes Decision Making." (2020).
[13]Ehrenzweig, Albert A. Negligence without fault. University of California Press, 2020.
[14]Iqbal, Rehana. "Supervision–whose responsibility?." (2017).
[15]Dowie, Iwan. "Understanding the standard of care required by nurses." Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain): 1987) 35, no. 4 (2020): 29-34.
[16]
[17]Griffith, Richard. "Negligence and the standard of care in district nursing." British journal of community nursing 24, no. 1 (2019): 35-37.
[18]Gagan, Mark. "Legal aspects in nurse prescribing." Nurse Prescribing 16, no. 4 (2018): 187-189.
[19]Gagan, M. "Legal Implications for NMPs." (2018).
