Business Law Case Study

1259 Words6 Pages
Case Study Case 1 A Sydney tramway passenger was injured in a collision with another tram, which occurred after the driver collapsed at the controls. The plaintiff argued that the collision could have been avoided if the tramway authority had fitted the tram with a system known as ‘dead man’s handle’, a system in use on Sydney’s trains. This would have stopped the tram and avoided the accident. The device had been rejected by the tramway authorities because it was felt that it could cause drivers to become tired, irritated and inefficient. There was no evidence of any similar device in use on two-man trams anywhere in the world. Will the plaintiff succeed in his negligence claim? Explain your reasoning. Answer: In this case, the…show more content…
According to the Chappell v. Hart case, the plaintiff might not be injury if the defendant takes precaution to the risk. In this case, the injury was directly cause by the defendant. In my opinion, the plaintiff has a fair chance to success in his claim since the defendant did breach their duty of care as a tram operator. And this kind of tram accident can be fatal. However, there might be some disputation on the necessary of fit extra system to prevent this kind of incident. Case 2 Jonas was employed by Rapid Couriers as a courier. His father was employed at the same company and worked with his son. One day while making a delivery, the son lost sight of his father, who was directing him, and accidentally ran over him. Discuss whether the father would successfully sue his employer. Answer: In this case, the father was injured as the truck ran over him. For a negligence to be existed in this case, the defendant, Rapid Couriers, must be found liable to their employee’s action. The defendant employed Jonas as a courier and assigned him to make a delivery. Jonas injured his father during a job assigned by his employer. If Jonas was not an independent contractor, the act that he performed would cause the employer vicarious liable to the accident as indicated in Cassidy v The Minister. Furthermore, Jonas performed the wrongful act while he is in his capacity as an employee. His action was obviously connected to his employment as held in Deatons Pty

More about Business Law Case Study

Open Document