Law of tort (problem question) Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Law of tort (problem question) - Essay ExampleKevin Browning was drunk or drinking bit driving and he should contribute all the liabilities that followed the calamity. Following the police investigation, Kelvin knocked Laura Coombs on the pavement as opposed to on the road. However, he claims that he leave alone not sweep up full responsibilities of the ill health of Robert, whose health deteriorated because of witnessing misadventure since Robert did not actually see the apoplexy happen. Moreover, according to Norris J. Roberts will not be compensated since he did not have some(prenominal) relationship with Laura. Additionally, Kelvin is appealing the cause not to take any liability of Lauras engenders ill health following the shoemakers last of her daughter facilitated by kelvins reckless driving. According to Kelvin, Clare was not at the scene of accident thus, she is not a witness to the accident. Moreover, she did not see the major body parts of Laura, so she cannot gi ve accounts of what the accident did to her daughter. It is also worth stating that there is not point she appeared shocked on learning that her daughter got involved in an accident and subsequent death. Clare suffered health problems following the death of her daughter and demands that Kelvin should take of her psychiatrical medical bills among other attached responsibilities a crewed by the same. Law The laws to be regarded in this case are those that are related to the road accident and to what extent should be the accused (Kelvin) should be responsible to the persons affected following the accident. Application In this case, Kelvin is noted to have problems or have refused to take care of duty owing to the psychiatric harm he caused to both goose and Clare. Additionally, Norris J. also, for the first time, dismissed Jacks claims that the accident and subsequent death of Laura had led to his health problem. According to Norris, Jack is not in any way a primary victim of circums tances. Moreover, he lacked all grounds that Jack could be treated as a secondary victim. Law However, according to the Road Traffic Accident, any witness who suffers any recognizable psychiatric perturb including post stress disorder due to the accident can file claims for damages for persons that have caused the accident. Application In this case, it is a fact that Jack has suffered psychiatric disorder following the death of Laura from the accident caused by Kelvin1. Therefore, it would be prudent if Kelvin pay all the damages caused on Jack following the accident and death of the Laura. If such is considered, the Jack will be treated a road traffic accident witness. Notably, had it not for the death, it can never be find out beyond any reasonable doubt that Jack could have suffered such health problems. When Jack went out and saw what happened to Laura, he might have suffered from anxious shock. Jacks case can be related to the Hambrook v Stoke2 and or Bros Dulieu v White3 ca ses where in both cases, the victims were awarded the damages caused to them by accidents they witnessed. Just standardized it may be in any other case that nature of Jacks injury was reasonably foreseeable and was never in any case caused by his own negligence. He had to have been in the scene of accident by the virtue that Laura was her partner, she came to his place, and by his own doorsteps, the accident happened. Therefore, he had to be there and follow her to the hospital4. Therefore, if Norris never wants to compel Kelvin to pay all health damages he has went through