Exclusion Clause: Tort of Negligence
Task: With regards to this case, discuss about the tort of negligence and the relevant laws:
Extravaganza Inc. owns and runs a huge performance hall used for a range of services from rock shows to vintage exhibitions. Several thousands of people are drawn to activities at this location so safety can be a serious matter. Guests to an event must usually pass through an entry point connected to a computerized assessment mechanism, indicating the presence of dangerous items.
The software is quite outdated and is unmaintained. The security system breaks down approximately once every month. Since the malfunction occurs without alert, it would be hard to organize for additional security staff to check for guests by checking them for unauthorised items. Hand-held scanners can be issued to current security personnel, but that would be costly and Events Inc. is of the view that the expense would not be warranted because they would not be used much of the times.
Petra is one of the people, who were majorly injured when, on one of the occasions the system failed, after getting drunk at the pub, Jason, another rock show-goer, lost his temper and aimlessly shoots at the everyone around him.
Assuming Extravaganza Inc. owes Petra a responsibility, considering the questions raised by these findings about the level of care and the gross negligence.
- Extravaganza Inc. owns and operates a big performance venue for different events such as music festivals and vintage exhibitions etc.
- The stadium is visited by a massive amount of visitors over many different events.
- The security assessment device software is badly maintained.
- System error occurs often without alert at least once every month.
- Once such a breakdown leads the attacker named Jason to start shooting at the audience after getting drunk and thus the visitor named Petra is badly hurt.
Tort: Before now, in any law or code, there is no clear concept of tort provided whatsoever. It has developed as a consequence of rulings in Common law or Case law. The Tort usually means the actions that are neither lawful nor very clear, it could be either unlawful, misleading or questionable. To put it another way, it is a legal error because of which an innocent party or a victim, should have the authority to claim compensation in the form of cash. However, this does not fall within the scope of contract breach or confidence. Torts could be of different types, such as neglect, harassment, slander, fraud, etc.
Tort of Negligence: The tort of negligence is a legal lawsuit filed by an individual who was injured as a result of an action taken by an entity who owes them a duty of care. Moreover, the individual is liable only when he has a care obligation and the claimant has been injured by the other party because of the gross negligence of the entity.
The following components must be present for neglect:
- The accused owes a duty of care to the complainant.
- The accused failed to fulfill this obligation.
- Infringement of such obligation induced the plaintiff to suffer significant damage.
Duty of Care: Duty of care infers an obligation mandated by law not by any ethical or cultural ideals. In order to be successful in a proceeding of tort of negligence, it is necessary to show that there was a legitimate duty of care required to the plaintiff and in terms of which violation was rendered. Although there was no precise interpretation of this obligation, the legal standard to hold an accused accountable for duty of care fluctuates depending on the nature of failure. Within the tort of negligence, it is a special section identified not by common situations, but because of the nature of damage sustained by the plaintiff.
- Duty should have been towards the plaintiff: in case it's just the accused's incompetence instead of a specific duty to the victim, it's not a liability. It is not satisfactory that the accused owes a duty of care to other individuals. Especially towards the complainant, this should have taken place. In fact, a complainant is entitled to file a lawsuit against the respondent for negligence if they himself have been harmed because of the respondent's failure to perform their duties.
- Breach of Duty: Violation of duty implies if the accused failed to take proper care where the conditions demanded it. The level of protection is measured from a rational or typically sensible individual's perspective. If the accused is discovered to have operated as a suitably cautious person, then there is no negligence.
- Essential extent of care: The legislation doesn't provide that during a specific situation the utmost precaution should have already been taken, the only provision is an amount/degree of caution that could be required in identical circumstances as per a sensible individual. Though, several threat strategies are permitted to facilitate the progress of certain public interest pursuits. For example, a specific speed for a fire service truck might not be deemed reckless, but that same speed for another automobile might be considered a form of neglect.
- The level of risk associated: Again, the level of care needed varies depending on each scenario. For one particular circumstance, a diligent act can be regarded as a reckless act in another. In all cases, the same level of care is not legally required. It is only the type of threat associated or the likelihood of the level of damage expected that dictates the preventive measures that should be taken by the accused.
- Reasonable predictability is rather distinct from remote possibilities: If an accident is inevitable, it may not actually be incompetence. In order to constitute negligence, it is essential to predict the likelihood of an accident happing / event occurring. The possible explanation for this is that this act's primary aim is to provide security from probabilities opposed to mere possibilities.
- The closeness of damage and incompetence: The harm or injuries suffered by the accused should not derive from the accused's neglect. That is a connection between neglect and damage must also be identified. In other words, the connection amongst the violation of duty of care and the damage triggered must be a direct causality.
- Damages: If the claimant has not suffered any injury or damage, then no intervention can be ushered for carelessness.
In the case at hand, the previous similar incidents could be referenced to:
In the particular circumstance, for many endeavors such as vintage exhibitions and music events, Extravaganza Inc owned and operated a big performance stadium. This stadium is visited by hundreds of people and safety is without doubt one of the most pressing concerns. It is badly maintained by Extravaganza Inc. despite having a computer controlled monitoring system to detect the existence of firearms. The company knows that their system crashes once every month without notification owing to which guests instantly can not be verified. Handheld scanners were the solution available, however, Extravaganza considering it costly does not want to expend on it because it is only necessary if its existing monitoring system crashes. During one day when their monitoring system collapsed, a man named Jason comes into the event with a firearm and was heavily intoxicated started firing aimlessly at the audience, and Petra, to whom the Extravaganza owes a caring responsibility, got badly hurt.
Therefore, referring to the situation the above-mentioned rule, it is to be observed whether the conditions of tort of negligence are fully met:
Duty of care: The very first component of tort of negligence, which is a duty of care concerning the complainant, has previously been fully met, as it is indicated in the particular instance here that the Extravaganza Inc. owed Petra a duty of care.
Breach of Duty: If Extravaganza Inc. is obligated Petra a duty of care, and yet did not prepare for appropriate preventative measures for security, then it undoubtedly contributes to a violation of Extravaganza's duty of care towards the complainant
In this case  the claimant only had sight in one of the eyes in this case. The accused, the complainant's boss, fully aware of this fact, supplied the claimant with only the eye protection glares for welding operations, which caused him to lose vision in the other eye. It was stated that the accused certainly owes the complainant's duty of care and was responsible for breach of duty and therefore a liability.
The level of care needed:
The level of care in seeking precautionary measures was what any sensible man might take to plan an event for thousands of people, like this similar scenario:
In one case, , the accused allows an accident severely injuring the complainant during her driver training from the complainant. It was decided by the House of Lords that a coach can not be granted the benefit of doubt of a poorer level of care. An unqualified and student driver deserves the very same level of care as a professional driver. In fact, the claimant was also found to be partly responsible for having half of the car's power, so along with the accused, he was found to be causing neglect.
Level of risks associated:
Despite their knowledge of their system malfunction, the accused didn't take proper care for the security standards. In fact, the level of risk associated was significant because thousands of visitors used to attend the site and anyone carrying weapons might threaten those people's lives. A similar scenario could be referenced to on the level of care required according to the risk associated:
In this event, Miller v. Jackson, following the accused's construction of a five-meter fence, had destroyed his house many times over the years due to being struck by the accused's cricket club's leather ball. The House of Lords then found that the level of risk associated was significant because of a past issue and therefore the accused was found to have committed a violation of duty for not taking any further measures to avoid it.
It was simply and explicitly expectable by the Extravaganza Inc. that their computer system evaluation malfunction could escalate to significant threats at any moment, but they did not prepare for any suitable security measures that any rational cautious man would do. For the anticipated foreseeability, the following event may be referenced:
Here , in this case the accused's construction workers left a sledgehammer on the path after work on the street, resulting in the blind complainant getting hurt having stepped on it. It was stated by the House of Lords that it was predictable for sightless person on foot to pass through that path and plaintiff to be held responsible for neglect and failing to take necessary precautions.
Proximity: In the case at hand, there was a close connection between the deterioration of Extravaganza Inc.'s security system and Jason's arrival with a gun at the event. Jason's arrival and his unrestricted shooting on civilians and ultimately Petra's severe injury are all obvious results of Extravaganza Inc.'s incompetence on the concert's security protocols. This argument may be applied to the ensuing case:
In this situation, the person behind the wheel of a police vehicle, was moving at a tremendous speed and heading to an accident and as a result, did not blow the siren at an intersection. A person had died in this mishap. The over speeding and not blowing the siren was considered to in proximity to the victim's death. Police vehicle driver was therefore arrested for negligence.
Damage: In the case in question, there is no denying that damage in the manner of injuries has been induced to Petra, so he is reasonable to file a lawsuit for carelessness. In a comparable circumstance to the one as under:
Here , in this case the claimant suffered a crash as a result of a mild stroke owing to less influence on the vehicle. ?And continued to hit another subject after this. The House of Lords found that he could have managed to avoid responsibility if he were totally out of control. If he was in senses, he was responsible for his negligence and particularly from the previous events he should learn regarding his incapacity.
On the basis of these statements and the cases applied, it can be inferred that Extravaganza Inc.'s negligence infringed Petra's obligation and met all the key aspects of tort of negligence and would, therefore, be responsible for same. Tort of Negligence assignments are being prepared by our law assignment help experts from top universities which let us to provide you a reliable online assignment help service.
 Paris v Stepney Borough Council[ 1951] 1 All ER 42, 1951.
 Nettleship v Weston[ 1971] 3 All ER 581, 1971.
 Haley v London Electricity Board  Ac 778, 1965.
 Roberts v Ramsbottom[ 1980] 1 All ER 7, 1980.
Bitsoflaw.org, 'Bits Of Law | Tort | Negligence | Breach Of Duty: Standard Of Care' (2013)
Getzler J, 'Richard Epstein, Strict Liability, And The History Of Torts' (2010) 3 Journal of Tort Law
J. A. Weir, 'Negligence—Duty Of Care—Foreseeability' (1964) 22 The Cambridge Law Journal.
J. Steele, ''Breach Of Duty Causing Harm?' Recent Encounters Between Negligence And Risk' (2007) 60 Current Legal Problems.
MATTHEWS M, 'Negligence And Breach Of Statutory Duty' (1984) 4 Oxford J Legal Studies
Miola J, 'Negligence And The Legal Standard Of Care: What Is ‘Reasonable’ Conduct?' (2009) 18 Br J Nursing
Mullender R, 'The Reasonable Person, The Pursuit Of Justice, And Negligence Law' (2005) 68 Modern Law Review
'Tort: Negligence: Contributory Negligence: Injury To Bicyclist By Street Car' (1903) 2 Michigan Law Review
'Tort: Negligence: Proximate Cause' (1904) 3 Michigan Law Review
'Torts: Negligence: Proximate Cause: Foresight Rule' (1928) 26 Michigan Law Review
'Torts: Negligence: Proximate Cause: Foresight Rule' (1928) 26 Michigan Law Review
Walter G. Schwartz, 'Negligence Pleading: Alleging Defendant's Breach Of Duty' (1947) 35 California Law Review.
Weir J, 'Negligence—Duty Of Care—Foreseeability' (1964) 22 The Cambridge Law Journal
Get Top Quality Assignment Help and Score high grades. Download the Total Assignment help App from Google play store or Subscribe to totalassignmenthelp and receive the latest updates from the Academic fraternity in real time.