Contributory Negligence Samples for Students †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Contributory Negligence. Answer: The issue at hand in this case that has been presented is that of negligence. In this case, Ruth claims that she was injured after of what is as a result of work that had been undertaken by Keith. Keith had purported that he was a qualified carpenter prompting Ruth to believe in his work. It is important to understand that a professional carpenter must be able to know that a rotting timber tread may be dangerous and that the same must be replaced by treated timber. As a result of the actions of Keith it can be recorded that Ruth suffered injuries and lost her job which resulted into increased injuries. It is essential to understand that in order for one to file for a negligencelaw suit their must be damages as it is in the case of the Ruth. By reference to the facts that have been provided, Ruth can file for contributory negligence in order to ensure that he is awarded partial damages as a result of the injuries he suffered. It is essential to understand that in contributory negligence there is no single party that is blamed for an injury caused but rather the blame is distributed equally among all the parties that were part of the actions that resulted to the injury (Robinette Sherland, 2003). In this case, Ruth can absorb Keith from all the blame of the injuries that were as a result of his poor work and request to have the blame distributed equally on both parties. However, there are a number of elements that Ruth must be able to satisfy in order to effectively put up a case. It must be understood that the burden of proof in this case lies entirely on the Plaintiff and they must convince the court without any reasonable doubt that the actions of the defendant contributed to the injury that occurred to them. First, it is essential to understand that in a contributory case, the plaintiff does not entirely place the blame on the defendant but rather on their part also (Rowe, 2009). Ruth should be able to explain to the court that her failure to inspect the work and take care of herself while walking on the tread had resulted to her injuries. This will have the court understand that she is sincere in her quest and that she is not out there just trying to take advantage of her circumstances to fleece Keith of his money. The case of Davies V Swan Motor co. is one of the cases that contributory negligence has been blamed partly on the plaintiff (Dange es, Occupiers). In the case the plaintiff had caused their injury by dangerously standing on a moving lorry. Although the lorry driver was partly to blame for driving while there was a person dangerously hanging from it was important that they considered the same would cause harm to the person. Proof of negligence is also a very important factor that should be considered in order to try and convince the court to award damages. The proof of negligence also requires to be proven by taking into consideration a number of aspects (McDonald, 2007). One of the aspects that can be used while trying to prove negligence is that of going against a statute. In most cases, statues outline how people should act in various situations and the standard of care that is required. If anyone goes against this standards they can be assumed to be negligent and the same used against them. Keiths actions in this case however do not go against any set statute that directly instructs carpenters to replace rotten woods with new ones. Experts on certain areas can also be approached to provide their evidence on whether or not the defendant was negligent while undertaking their duties (Magnus et al., 2004). This testimony can be used in favor or against the defendant depending on its nature. Ruth can req uest the services of experienced carpenters to testify to the court whether Keith was negligent or not on how he handled the repairs yet he claimed to be an expert on the same. Customs is also another factor that can be used in trying to determine whether or not a defendant was negligent or not. If there is a custom whereby certain activities are undertaken in a similar manner it is important to note that the same can be used against or for the benefit of the defendant (Levy et al., 2016). Therefore in this case, it is customary for carpenters to replace rotting wood with new treated wood in order to ensure the safety of the people. Keith failed to undertake this and as a result Ruth was injured. The other element that should be proven in the court in the case is that of the defendant owing the plaintiff the duty of care (Stewart Stuhmcke, 2009). It is essential to understand that according to the natural laws of justice while people are undertaking services they should owe the other party the duty of care. In this case Keith owed Ruth the duty of care by ensuring that the repairs he undertook were safe and not endangering her life. However, the same did not happen since Keith did not replace the rotten wood which would thereafter cause injury to Ruth. Ruth can try and present to the court that if it was not for Keiths actions of claiming to be a qualified carpenter the injuries would have not occurred. In Barrett v MOD The duty of care arose whereby the ministry of defence did not take care of the plaintiff husbands leading to excessive drinking (People v. Barrett, 943 N.E.2d 329, 373 Ill. App. 3d 1144 (App. Ct. 2007). The facts of the case were that the plaintiffs husband had been celebrating a recent promotion as well as his birthday whereby he indulged in excessive drinking at the duty free bar. After a couple of drinks he passed out whereby the commanding officer instructed a junior officer to go and take care of him. After some time he realized that the officer was not breathing. The wife sued claiming that the Ministry of Defense had the duty of care to ensure that army officers at the base did not dangerously get drunk. The court ruled that the Ministry of defense was reluctant to enforce the excessive drinking rules thus resulting into the officers death. Due to this action the defendant was accused of contributory negligence and the damages deducted by 25%. It is also essential to point out that the law refrains anybody from undertaking part in activities that endanger the lives of others. This is a duty of care that ensures that people are safe from having their lives endangered and everybody should adhere to the same (Sergienko, 2006). In t his case, Keith failed the duty of care due to the fact that he endangered the life of Ruth by covering the rotten timber yet he very well knew that the same was a threat to her. The court should therefore take into consideration this fact in order to ensure that Ruth the required justice. The plaintiff must also present to the court that the defendant failed to act in a reasonable way. It is important to understand that if the defendant failed to act in a reasonable manner (Giliker Beckwith, 2009). Keith had the duty to understand that it would only be reasonable to replace the rotten wood with a new one. Therefore, in this case, it would be deemed that a reasonable person would be able to understand that the failure to replace the rotten wood would result to injury to a person who would walk on it. In his case Keith failed to act as a reasonable person resulting to the accident. There are a number of factors that are considered when trying to determine what who a reasonable person is depending on different situations. One of the factors that are considered when trying to prove the element of reasonable person in contributory negligence is that of special skills. When an action is undertaken it is important to understand whether the person undertaking the same needed any special skills yet the plaintiff did not consider the same at the first place (Schwartz Rowe, 2010). In this case, we can see that Keith claimed to be a skilled carpenter and won Ruths heart and got the job. Therefore, it is important to understand that Ruth expected the job undertaken to be within the standards that any professional carpenter can undertake. The other aspect that is considered when trying to figure out who is a reasonable person is that of age. One cannot sue children with contributory negligence due to their actions (Zirkel Clark, 2007). According to the law, children are not regarded as reasonable people. Keith in this case was not a child and therefore the aspect of a reasonable person cannot be ruled out. It is also important to ensure that the mental capacity of the person being sued is assessed in order to get a better understanding of the person. People with mental disorders cannot be sued for their actions and it is very important to understand that a mental capacity test should be undertaken on Keith. This is because he lied on an advert that he was a qualified carpenter prompting Ruth to award her the job yet he was not qualified to undertake such a job. Apart from the mental capacities the other factor that is highly considered while trying to determine a reasonable person is that of physical characteristics (Schwartz Rowe, 2010). It is important to understand that people with some physical deformities may not be able to undertake some tasks and it is up to the plaintiff to consider this while awarding someone a job in order to prevent future disputed. For example, Ruth should not have expected that Keith would be able to complete the work if he was blind. However, in this case there is no mental incapability that has been noted and it is expected that Keith should have presented his work to the required standards. It is also essential to understand that the court also needs to understand that the defendant was aware that there actions would result in to injury. As a carpenter Keith should have been able to ensure that the work delivered is of the highest standards possible. Therefore in this case, it is deemed appropriate to state that Keith understood the consequences of the poor work that he delivered to his client and this case should be able to face the consequences. The other element that Ruth must be able to satisfy the court with is the fact that she actually experienced injury as a result of the negligence of the plaintiff (Little, 2007). In this case, we can see that Ruth suffered a number of injuries and financial damage as a result of the injuries incurred. In this case, the defendant must be able to partially refund Ruth for some of the damages incurred in order to enable get herself to the initial places that she was at. In conclusion, it is essential to understand that one can sue a party for contributory negligence in order to be awarded damages. In this case, Ruth suffered injuries that were partly caused by her lack to take note of the unskilled work as well as the poor work that Keith had undertaken. As noted Keith had purported to be a skilled carpenter in an advert yet he was not and as a reason of this he delivered substandard work. However in order to prove contributory negligence, Ruth must be able to prove a number of contributory negligence elements. One of the elements that must be proven is that proof of negligence (McMillan, 2005). There is need to showcase the court that there was actual negligence that happened due to an act or omission of the defendant. There is also the need to ensure that there was damage that resulted as a cause of the defendants actions. Ruth can present to the court evidence of the injuries she suffered and job loss in order to pray for damages. In this case, i t is important to understand in contributory negligence that it is also important for the defendant to present to the court that their actions also were part of the cause of the damage incurred. References Robinette, C.J. and Sherland, P.G., 2003. Contributory or Comparative: Which Is the Optimal Negligence Rule.N. Ill. UL Rev.,24, p.41.herland, 2003) Rowe, E.A., 2009. Contributory negligence, technology, and trade secrets. Magnus, U., Martn-Casals, M. and van Boom, W.H., 2004.Unification of tort law: contributory negligence(Vol. 8). Kluwer Law International. Levy, N.M., Golden, M.M. and Sacks, L., 2016.Comparative Negligence, Assumption of the Risk, and Related Defenses(Vol. 1). California Torts. Stewart, P.E. and Stuhmcke, A.G., 2009.Australian principles of tort law. The Federation Press. Giliker, P. and Beckwith, S., 2000.Tort. Sweet and Maxwell. Zirkel, P.A. and Clark, J.H., 2007. School negligence case law trends.S. Ill. ULJ,32, p.345. Schwartz, V.E. and Rowe, E.F., 2010.Comparative negligence. LexisNexis. Little, W.B., 2007. It Is Much Easier to Find Fault with Others, Than to be Faultless Ourselves: Contributory Negligence as a Bar to Claim for Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability.Campbell L. Rev.,30, p.81. McMillan, J. (2005). Contributory Negligence and Statutory Damage Limits-An Old Alternative to a Contemporary Movement.Idaho L. Rev.,42, 269. McDonald, B., 2007. The Impact of the Civil Liability Legislation on Fundamental Policies and Principles of the Common Law of Negligence. Sergienko, G.S., 2006. Assumption of Risk as a Defense to Negligence.W. St. UL Rev.,34, p.1. DANGEESOCCUPIER'S, T.N.I.U., Students may also like to refer to Yachuk v. Oliver Blais Co., Ltd.[1949] AC 386a Privy Council case of a like nature. JGF. People v. Barrett, 943 N.E.2d 329, 373 Ill. App. 3d 1144 (App. Ct. 2007).