Civil Litigation Course work Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Civil Litigation Course work - Essay ExampleScott was driving on. He rammed into Mr. Scotts vehicle on the passengers side. According to the police reports, Mr. Marshall was not wearing a helmet as per the traffic regulations. Mr. Scott on the other hand though drunk, his status was not beyond the legal alcohol limit. However, he was charged and found dishonored of a traffic offence as he was talking over the phone firearm driving contrary to section 3 of the pass Traffic Act. Mr. Marshall sued Mr. Scott for the injuries sustained. The aim of this report to is determine if Mr. Scott is apt(predicate) to pay damages to Mr. Marshall and what practiccapable defenses he could actually rely on to escape liability. 3 Issues and Law 3 The first issue that arises in this case is the need to determine whether Mr. Scott is guilty of careless driving under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act and if this would necessarily prejudice his civilised liability. In this regard, the proceedings und er Road Traffic Act do not prejudice his civil case. According to Keenan (2011, p. 53), the outcome of a criminal action does not affect the outcome of civil case. The next issue in this case is the issue of liability. The question is whether Mr. Scott was liable to pay any damages to Mr. Marshall for the injuries sustained. Sustaining injuries in an casualty does not engender one an automatic right to recover damages. The question to be determined is which ships company was liable for the accident. One political party may be fully liable or both parties might be liable meaning that each party is partially liable. The person claiming damages for personal suffering after a motor vehicle accident has to prove that the other party was remiss. This means that Mr. Marshall has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that whatever damage that resulted from the accident was wholly or partially the fault of Mr. Scott. 4 In this case, one of the initial things to be determined is whether Scot t was negligent. infra the law of torts, Howarth (2006, p. 147) indicates that a person is negligent when he or she is in breach of the legal duty of care that brings damage to the claimant. Negligence as per Alderson B in the case of Blyth v Birmingham wet Works constitutes omission by a reasonable person who guided by ordinary consideration fails to do something and as a result causes injury to another person. The same principle of the tort of negligence applies to the motor vehicle accident. Liability in this respect is determined on the basis of the negligent party. Under the law of torts, there are three requirements that need to be fulfilled. The first requirement that needs to be fulfilled for a claim to succeed is that the party claiming negligence needs to establish a duty of care (Smith, 1983, p. 44). 4 In light of the case, Marshall needs to establish that Scott owed him a duty of care. As a general rule, any one driving on a earth track has a duty to the public and w here one chooses to drive, they should be able to control the motor vehicle so that it does not harm other people. In the instant case, Mr. Scott by virtue of driving on a public road had a duty to control it to ensure that any person on the same road was not hurt. Even if it was the fault of the other party Mr. Scott should have taken all the reasonable measure to control the happening of the accident. This is to his disadvantage. However the other party too being a public road user is burdened with the same duty of care to ensure that he controls the motor