Law of tort (problem question) Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Law of tort (problem question) - Essay Example Kevin Browning was drunk or drinking while driving and he should take all the liabilities that followed the accident. Following the police investigation, Kelvin knocked Laura Coombs on the pavement as opposed to on the road. However, he claims that he will not take full responsibilities of the ill health of Robert, whose health deteriorated because of witnessing accident since Robert did not actually see the accident happen. Moreover, according to Norris J. Roberts will not be compensated since he did not have any relationship with Laura. Additionally, Kelvin is appealing the cause not to take any liability of Laura’s mother’s ill health following the death of her daughter facilitated by kelvin’s reckless driving. According to Kelvin, Clare was not at the scene of accident; thus, she is not a witness to the accident. Moreover, she did not see the major body parts of Laura, so she cannot give accounts of what the accident did to her daughter. It is also worth stat ing that there is not point she appeared shocked on learning that her daughter got involved in an accident and subsequent death. Clare suffered health problems following the death of her daughter and demands that Kelvin should take of her psychiatric medical bills among other attached responsibilities a crewed by the same. Law: The laws to be regarded in this case are those that are related to the road accident and to what extent should be the accused (Kelvin) should be responsible to the persons affected following the accident. Application: In this case, Kelvin is noted to have problems or have refused to take care of duty owing to the psychiatric harm he caused to both Jack and Clare. Additionally, Norris J. also, for the first time, dismissed Jack’s claims that the accident and subsequent death of Laura had led to his health problem. According to Norris, Jack is not in any way a primary victim of circumstances. Moreover, he lacked all grounds that Jack could be treated as a secondary victim. Law: However, according to the Road Traffic Accident, any witness who suffers any recognizable psychiatric disorder including post stress disorder due to the accident can file claims for damages for persons that have caused the accident. Application: In this case, it is a fact that Jack has suffered psychiatric disorder following the death of Laura from the accident caused by Kelvin1. Therefore, it would be prudent if Kelvin pay all the damages caused on Jack following the accident and death of the Laura. If such is considered, the Jack will be treated a road traffic accident witness. Notably, had it not for the death, it can never be ascertained beyond any reasonable doubt that Jack could have suffered such health problems. When Jack went out and saw what happened to Laura, he might have suffered from nervous shock. Jack’s case can be related to the Hambrook v Stoke2 and or Bros Dulieu v White3 cases where in both cases, the victims were awarded the damag es caused to them by accidents they witnessed. Just like it may be in any other case that nature of Jack’s injury was reasonably foreseeable and was never in any case caused by his own negligence. He had to have been in the scene of accident by the virtue that Laura was her partner, she came to his place, and by his own doorsteps, the accident happened. Therefore, he had to be there and follow her to the hospital4. Therefore, if Norris never wants to compel Kelvin to pay all health damages he has went through