Essay Sample on Negligence & Proximate Cause: Seeking Redress in Court

When an individual is wounded squarely because of another person or organization's lack of care, the person can accrue economic compensation as a result of the lack of care (Jerrold, 2014). The individual can then head to the court to seek redress for the actions of the company. It will then be the duty of the defendant to prove that the leading cause of the injury cause of his or her injuries. Consequently, proximate cause entails an action being seen by the court as the primary cause of an injury to another party (Jerrold, 2014). The action may not be the first to institute a succession of events that led to the injury; neither was it the last occurrence before the accident. What matters is that the action led to foreseeable outcomes in the absence of any intercession from anyone. Thus the plaintiff has to show the court that was it not for the direct effect of the proximate cause the accident would not have occurred.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

To defend against the suit, the defendant will try to invalidate the elements of the proximate cause of action. There are three principles which the defendant might employ. Firstly, there is the doctrine of contributory negligence. Contributory negligence means that the plaintiff conduct was below par in comparison with the required standards to protect him. That accompanied the defendant's actions were the cause of the injury. In other words, were it not for the negligence of the individual the accident would not have occurred (Landers, 2019). For example, a plaintiff is driving a company car which is faulty and is involved in an accident and injured. But then it is established that the driver was under the influence of alcohol while driving. Both the company and the driver's actions are to blame for the injury and this constitutes contributory negligence. To sum it up, contributory negligence will be used to show the court that both parties are jointly responsible for the accident because of their actions.

Secondly, the defendant can use the principle of comparative negligence whereby the plaintiff's compensation is reduced by the percentage of his negligence on the accident. Comparative negligence is then divided into three parts. There is the pure comparative negligence where the plaintiff is given the percentage of damages that have accrued because of the defendant(Landers, 2019). We also have the modified comparative advantage where the plaintiff is given compensation only if the individual dereliction of duty is equal to or less than the accused negligence. Lastly, there is the slight-gross comparative negligence where the complainant negligence is awarded damages only if the individual lack of care is regarded slight and the complainant is gross. For instance, an intoxicated driver injures a pedestrian who failed to use a crosswalk. The pedestrian compensation may be reduced due to his negligence though it's unlikely the driver would have acted divergently. Thirdly, there is the assumption of risk principle where the plaintiff is aware of the risk involved but still proceeds with the activity. For this principal to work the complainant must have subjective knowledge of the peril involved in the activity.

After analyzing the facts of the case, I have found Olivia to be the proximate cause of the accident. If she had not been mesmerized by the looks of Ryan her daughter Stella would not have wandered off to the road.

In matters of breach of duty, it is not always sufficient that a person proves that the defendant owed them a duty. They must show that the other party negligently violated the duty to the other person. Thus A person breaches a duty of care when they fail to exercise reasonable care in fulfilling their duty. For instance, a driver breaches the duty of care when they negligently cause harm to other road users. The court in deciding whether the defendant has breached this duty of care it will only deal with matters of fact only. And thus from the example above the court will decide whether the driver exercised reasonable care in driving the vehicle.

The standard of care that the courts require in demonstrating a breach of duty of care is that of a reasonable man. in Hall v Brooklands Auto-Racing club, the court held that a reasonable man is said to be the man on the streets. It should be noted that this standard of care often changes depending on the circumstances. For example, you cannot hold a waiter to the standards of a doctor. Thus it is important that a defendant is held to the standards expected of their professions.

Olivia breached the duty of care to Stella, she breached the duty when she let harm come Stella's way. Bob also breaches the duty of care. Bob owes a duty of care to Ryan and other people on the playground. Bob breaches the duty of care when he hits Ryan and causes the equipment to hit the young boy.

Proximate cause is the actual cause for the complainant's injury. In matters of breach of duty of care, the court may sometime find several reasons for a certain injury. And thus the courts are tasked with the duty to find the most relevant cause that relates to the injury in order for a person to succeed in this case. The courts require the defendant's actions to be the main cause of the injury. If the courts find any other reasons that are likely to cause the injury, then the proximate cause will fail.

Is should be noted that two defendants can be both the ones who cause the injuries. In such a situation each defendant will be required to compensate the injured party. There are several defenses to proximate cause. The first defense is that of contributory negligence. The phenomena arise in a situation where the plaintiff also contributed to their own injuries. For instance, a motorist is texting while driving a car and a pedestrian is crossing the road at a red light. Both parties are negligent and have contributed to the injury of the pedestrian.

The second defense is that of comparative negligence. It is a type of defense where the plaintiff is only compensated d the percentage of damages attributed to the defendant. There are three types of comparative negligence. There is slightly gross, pure and modified. The third defense of proximate cause is the assumption of risk. It basically states that a defendant cannot be liable if the plaintiff had the know2ldge of the risks associated with the activity.

The phenomenon requires the plaintiff to have had prior knowledge and he himself decided to partake in the activities. In the story, bob is the proximate cause of Ryan's injuries, the young boys' injuries and the cause of loss of consciousness by the mother. Laura is the proximate cause of her own death.

The government owes a duty of care to various parties to the case. Firstly it owes the duty of care to Ryan, Olivia, Stella, the young boy, and the mother to ensure that the playground is safe. The duty is violated by the government for their failure to put in barricades that would ensure that children in the playground are not impacted by any foreign element. The government owes the duty of care to the boy who was harmed by the equipment. It is the government's obligation to ensure that the equipment is permanently bolted to the ground to avoid injuries. With regard to the proximate cause in this circumstance, the proximate cause will be contributory. The government and bob can each be liable for its own part in the breach.

Before issuing a judgment, there are several questions of fact that are relevant to this case. The first question would be whether bob was driving too fast to control his vehicle, or so fast to worry about the people on the playground. The second question of fact was whether Laura's phone caused her to lose control of the car or whether the deep pothole she hit caused it. Ryan, the young boy and the mother who fainted are the parties who need to be compensated in this scenario. The duty of care owed to them was violated by the government and Bob. And thus bob, the government owe a duty of care to Ryan, the boy, and the mother. Before ruling other facts which are significant include medical evidence of the sustained injuries. It is important in the award of damages.

References

Jerrold, L. (2014). Possibility, probability, and causation: A study of proximate causation. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 145(6), 836-838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.03.016

Landers, A. (2019). Proximate Cause and Patent Law. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3339019