商务契约关系3作业

Outcome3

A civil wrong committed by a person in deliberate or negligent breach of a legal duty, from which liability to make reparation for any consequential loss or injury may arise. The law of Delist, likes the law of Contract, is a part of the law of Obligations. Depict is also known as the law of ‘civil wrong and applies to much of the same area of law as the English law of ‘tort’. Both the Scottish common law and statutory law apply to delictual obligations which are imposed by law.（refer to text book p133）

strict liability, where liability can arise without fault through statutory provision. vicarious liability, where the defender is liable for the actions of another; Vicarious liability of the Employer for his Employee’s Actions. Vicarious liability is an example of joint and several liability as the injured party can sue both the employee and the employer. (Refer to text book p135)

In this case, John in the car accident, the company has vicarious liability, first, John is the company's staff, the staff must have some trouble with the company's responsibility, and the second, although the car was hit by John himself, but in the course of his work occurred in this matter, so the company has vicarious liability. But for John to push people in the company not responsible for the incident, because John's not what happened during the

As noted above there must be three elements present: a loss or injury, such as physical or personal injury, the loss of earnings, nervous shock, distress, damage

to a reputation caused by a legal wrong caused by culpa on the part of the wrongdoer. (Refer to text book p135) If two or more persons have contributed to the delict then they are jointly & severally liable. Liability is transferred to the person benefiting or gaining by the actions of the wrongdoer. （Refer to text book p136）

In this case, John gave the driver the incident constitutes a violation, the person he hit was injured. John is a deliberate assault, which has been in line with the three elements of the two, so infringement is constituted.

Negligence is the most common delict and an action in delict arises where harm is caused carelessly or inadvertently. For a claim to arise in negligence, the following points must be considered(Refer to text book p150) was a duty of care owed by the defender to the pursuer? And, if so, was there a breach of the duty of care? was the harm or loss caused by the defender’s breach of this duty of care. whether the loss arising from the breach of duty was too remote. (Refer to text book p151) In this case, John is obliged to pay attention to who he hit, he hit the car of his negligence, and he is obliged to pay attention to other people. John has constituted a tort, he hit the man in serious condition, still in hospital. Because John was a result of the negligence of the impact, the people were hospitalized, and she would not have hurt John did not neglect caused

The duty of care must be owed by the defender to the Pursuer.

a person has no right of action if they have expressly or by implication

consented to something being done to them. However, such consent must be freely given and examples would include the implied consent of sportsmen, or express consent to a medical operation. There may also be a defence of necessity when saving lives or property.

（1）Volenti non fit injuria translates, It must be shown that the pursuer freely an voluntarily with full knowledge of the risk involved agreed to take that risk. The defender must establish that the pursuer had free choice and this would not apply if he acted out of duty or out of fear of losing his job. Refer to the case of Morris V Murray (1991).

（2） A damnun fatale or ‘Act of God’ would offer a complete defence. This would be some extraordinary event outside the control of man such as an earthquake. Mere heavy rainfall would not constitute a damnun fatale, even if it were exceptional.

In this case, John is obliged to pay attention to who he hit, he hit the car of his negligence, he is obliged to pay attention to other people. John has constituted a tort, he hit the man in serious condition, still in hospital. So there is no chance of being John exemption

（3）.A plea of contributory negligence and it is used where it is established that: the defender has been negligent BUT the pursuer’s own actions, in failing to take care for his own safety, have partly contributed to his injuries.

Since the Law Reform Act 1945 it is available as a partial defence, and damages are reduced to such an extent as the court thinks ‘just and equitable’ having regard to the pursuer’s share in responsibility for the damage. This share could be as much as 99%.

The onus of proof is on the defender to establish the defence. Refer to the case of Sayers V Harlow Urban Council (1958).

（Refer to text book p117 to p181）

John gave the driver the incident was deliberate, which constitutes the infringement, together with the impact, people are still hospitalized so he will have to hit people who have an account, and compensation for his medical expenses. His car accident, vehicle damage caused by negligence, but also constitutes a violation, but because John was at work when the accident occurred, so the company has vicarious liability. He has no right to apply Disclaimer.

John's butt in the event of an employer not assumes any responsibility, because John was not done in the course of this matter. But in the car accident the employer has the responsibility of, first, John is a legitimate company's employees, and the second, John is in the process of work because of their negligence caused the accident, so employers have vicarious liability. Employee's duties on employers liability act (second accident), compensation can be held john's dereliction of duty. John does not comply with the system, may be dismissed.