Reparation law and evidence Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3500 words

Reparation law and evidence - Coursework practice sessionBroad Legal Context The law of tort revolves around the indispensability for people to be liable for their performances and ensure that their actions do not affect people negatively. The law of tort is steeped in the concept of reliable neighbourliness which requires people to be more give likeful about the implications of their actions to other people in the wider society1. in that location argon five main components of the law of tort which gives rise to a tort and are master(prenominal) in determining the outcome of civil proceedings to tort cases2 1. Recoverable going There moldiness be some damage, injury or sledding that can be valued and recovered. 2. Duty of palm The aggrieved party must have had some job of care from the accused person. 3. Breach of Duty The handicraft of care must be disregarded 4. Loss or Damage The disregard of the duty of care and the loss must have led to some degree of loss or damag e. 5. Foreseeability of the Loss The loss should have been known or anticipated by a reasonable person. This report would therefore go bad all(prenominal) the different components of the study and this would lead to different assessments of the obligations, rights and their limits in terms of the relevant actions or inactions. ISH-BETH In terms of ISH-BETH, there are two areas in the Law of Tort that created issues in this case which are worth discussing. The issues are 1. Whether the repair of the office heating system was done in the right port and manner to avoid a tort action by Susan and Mark or not. 2. The position of the loss of files caused by the accident and whether K2MS is responsible for liabilities for losing the file or not. In analysing the issues, it appears that ISH-BETH has a result duty of care towards employing the two men who were fixing the air conditioners. Hence, they have an obligation towards them and their actions. In terms of the files, it appears tha t K2MS had a direct obligation towards ISH-BETH. And Susans actions created a vicarious liability for K2MS. . It can therefore be inferred that the contract of delivering the project to ISH-BETH is the radical obligation of K2Management and not Susan3. Due to that, we will treat it under the aegis of K2Management and not under Susans obligations since she is an employee and has no direct contract with ISH-BETH Rules Relating to the Slippery Floor The rules of Donoghue V Stevenson4 spell out the universal rules for dealing with tort and this indicates that the impact of a persons actions have an effect on his neighbours and due to this, there is the need for a duty of care to be placed on on persons to promote responsible behaviour. This means that there is the need for some standard of care to be imposed where there is a foreseeable damage or injury. Failure to do so will mean that the affected person can bring an action for negligence on the part of the perpetrator. In a workplace , the employer has certain obligations which imposes an inherent duty of care on the employer who controls the premises. First of all, the employer has a Common Law duty to ensure the safety of employees on his premises. The Health and prophylactic Act 1974 requires employers to meet some standard measures in the workplace to ensure that the the place is safe for all workers. The employee will have to balance the foreseeability of risk against the