This suggests that the driver owes the same level

This
essay will discuss the claimant, Daryl’s chances of succeeding in a claim using
the tort of negligence against the defendant, Rick. To justify an answer,
relevant case law will be applied such as Bourhill v Young1 and Nettleship v Weston2. In which the actions of
the defendant will be scrutinised and challenged using other applicable case
law judgements in order to form a conclusion that is just and equitable in the
given circumstances. Furthermore, appropriate legislation will be used in order
to support any points that are put forward as well as any defences that the
defendant could potentially rely upon will be outlined and explained, however, the final judgement of whether the
claimant is able to succeed in a claim using the tort of negligence will be
clearly shown in the conclusion.

To
put forward a claim using the tort of negligence there are four elements that
must be prominent3.
The first problem area to be dealt with is whether the defendant owes a duty of
care to the claimant. In the previous case of Nettleship v Weston the standard
of care expected in drivers is put forward clearly by credible judges such as
Lord Denning in which Denning suggests that the driver owes the same level of
duty of care to every passenger as he
would to every pedestrian, therefore, the
defendant does, in fact, owe a duty of care to the passenger as a driver.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

To
ensure that a duty of care is owed it must be clear that there is a
relationship of proximity between the claimant and the defendant in which can
make clear that the defendant is directly responsible for the negative outcomes
of the event in question. A precedence that could be used to find whether there
was a link between the defendant and claimant is Bourhill v Young which is a
case where a pregnant woman reached inside the tram to get her basket and the
defendant went past the tram at a substantial speed and hit a car that was 50
miles away from the claimant and therefore, the claimant did not see the
accident take place. The accident was severe and killed the defendant. The
claimant subsequently walked past the occurrence in which by the time the claimant
reached there, the body was removed but there was an excessive amount of blood
on the scene of the crime. The claimant went into shock and her baby was
stillborn in which she brought a claim against the defendant’s agency. The courts found there was no duty of
care owed to the claimant as there was no sufficient relationship of proximity
between the claimant and defendant.

However,
in this case, Rick and Daryl do have a sufficient relationship of proximity as
they were both directly involved with the accident as Rick’s car hit the car
that Daryl was in, causing Daryl to sustain the injuries. This supports the
information provided by Lord Denning’s statement outlining that every driver
has a duty of care to road users such as pedestrians, drivers etc. signifying
that an established duty of care is owed as a driver in this scenario. Consequently,
the defendant does owe a duty of care to the claimant because every driver is
expected the same duty of care for all road users to reduce any dangers or
accidents that could occur.