Incident Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Incident - Essay Example In the case of Ada, she must show that someone's negligence caused her son's death and the injury she suffered to claim damages under tort. With regard to Bob's death, two parties can be found liable - Charles and the organizers of the Senley Regatta. Charles has a duty of care to Bob at sea to exercise due diligence in driving his boat just as drivers on the road have a duty of care to other cars, which he breached when he crossed Bob's lane without giving appropriate signals - an act which any boat driver must be aware of. This is evident in applying the "neighbour test" in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]2 and the three stage test in Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990]3. The event organisers, on the other hand, are also liable because they have a duty of care towards its participants and spectators. This duty of care is analogous to that in Michael Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd. [2001]4, where the differences in the facts of the case are immaterial because it is evident t hat the organisers in both events both failed to put safety measures to ensure the protection of its participants and spectators. ... the claimant must be sufficiently proximate both with its relationship to the victim and with the incident itself, such that it was witnessed by the claimant in person. This view was furthered in McLoughlin v. O'Brian [1983]6, where it is stated that damages can be awarded if the plaintiff "comes upon its immediate aftermath." In this respect, Ada her sufficiently proximate relationship with Bob, was neither present during the incident nor was she able to arrive immediately at the scene and experience its immediate aftermath. To claim damages, she must therefore illustrate that unlike the case of Alcock v. Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1992]7, where there were no "depicted suffering of recognizable individuals", the satellite feed she watched on television allowed her to recognise Bob's boat, not only because she was aware he was participating in the event, but also because she recognised his distinctively coloured boat, allowing her to see the suffering of a recogni sable individual. While this claim can be risky, because it departs from conventional interpretation, she has a good chance to claim damages for nervous shock, provided that she can illustrate the substantial differences of her case. With respect to Freddie, a fireman who suffered nervous shock after rescuing ten of the children in the pleasure cruiser two of whom died in the hospital, he cannot claim damages under tort of negligence for two reasons. First, even though the rescue doctrine in Wagner v International r.r. Co., (NY) [1921]8 , 9 and in Ogwo v Taylor [1987]10 makes Charles liable to the physical injuries that Freddie may suffer as a result of the rescue; Freddie was not rescuing Charles, but one of the students, who were victims of Charles' negligent act. Thus, this makes the