Analysis of Law of Torts Cases Free Essay Example, 2000 words

In Ryan v. Youngs (1938), the defendant s servant, while driving a lorry, suddenly died, which resulted in an accident and consequent injury to the plaintiff. The driver appeared to be quite healthy and the defendant could not foresee his sudden death. It was held that the accident was due to an act of God and, the defendant was not liable. It is also a stated position that Reasonable foreseeability does not mean remote possibility. According to Champan v. Hoarse (1961) 108 C. L.R. 112, at 115, per Dixon C. J.) to establish negligence it is not enough to prove that the injury was foreseeable, but a reasonable likelihood of the injury has also to be shown because foreseeability does not include any idea of likelihood at all. Lord Dunedin in Fardon v. Harcourt-Rivington (1932) 146 L. T. 391) said that if the possibility of danger emerging is only a mere possibility which would never occur to the mind of a reasonable man, then there is no negligence in not having taken extraordin ary precautions .. People must guard against reasonable probabilities but they are not bound to guard against fantastic possibilities. Even a council has a duty of care towards his client, the council should be careful in performing his professional duties. We will write a custom essay sample on Analysis of Law of Torts Cases or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/page A breach of any of the above-mentioned duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient. It is also a settled position that Duty must be owed to the Plaintiff, Mere carelessness on the part of the defendant does not entitle the plaintiff to sue him, it has to be proved that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.