Chandler v Cape Plc  EWCA Civ 525 was a very important decision as it traversed the limits of common law and the fuelled the debate on how much power and influence the court has in lifting the corporate veil to support the underhanded claims (due to limited liability) of tort victims. Consequently, it also led to how the assumption of responsibility is determined given the concept of limited liability. This assignment is going to analyse the decision of the case, evaluate the reasoning and its implications, and compare the consequences of a later decision with its precedents. The case, as per the following evaluation, was found to be pushing the borders of common law, creating both positive and negative implications. The case was also found to be contradictory to other important landmark cases, such as Adams v Cape Industries Plc  Ch 433.
Last of all, Cost of avoiding harm needs to be taken into account. The argument that a danger was too costly to eliminate is not a legitimate argument. However courts do recognise a balance between the risk and the cost of eliminating it. If the risk is remote and the precautions needed to be taken are very expensive, the defendants lack of action by not doing anything may be justified. The greater the risk is and the more likely it is, the consideration is given towards the cost of the eliminating measures which the defendants may have taken to safeguard. The decision in these circumstances relies on whether the courts decide that the defendants had acted reasonable in the given
Brohawn, supra, 276 Md. at 399. Subsequently, the other party to the altercation filed an action against Brohawn seeking damages for intentional torts and negligence. Id. at 399-400. Transamerica, Brohawn’s insurer, refused to defend Brohawn on the grounds that her coverage contained a policy exclusion whereby Transamerica was not responsible for intentional conduct. Id. at 400. Thereafter, Transamerica initiated a declaratory judgment action, in the same court, seeking to have the court declare that Brohawn’s conduct was intentional, and, therefore, fell within the policy exclusion. Id. at 401. The circuit court dismissed the declaratory judgment action because “the question of coverage would be ‘determined by the jury’s verdict in the tort suits]. . . .” Id. at
(2) In those instances where the plaintiff is not guilty of negligence, he would be forced to bear a portion of the loss should one of the tortfeasors prove financially unable to satisfy his share of the damages.
The losses compensated for in this case include difficult-to-quantify losses such as disability, emotional distress, suffering, and pain, and economic losses such as lost earnings and medical expenses (Greene, Coon and Bornstein, 2001). Again here, capping or limiting the jury award would imply that even after suffering economic and noneconomic damages in the hands of the defendant, a plaintiff would not likely get back to the position they were in before the injury.
When you or your dearest suffer the injury because of someone else's negligence or deliberate action, then it appears natural that the person would provide you to compensation for your injury, or that their insurance policy can settle this case in a fair way. Unluckily, that seldom happens. Many of us won't take responsibility for our actions, and insurance firms take advantage of under compensating injury victims. Insurance firms and their lawyers do apprehend the governing law backwards and forwards, and they also know that that all non-lawyers don't have any information what legal
Negligence cases and their analyses have dominated our judicial system from its very inception. This can be attributed to the human need to find fault and administer blame for wrong-doings and the mere fact that committing negligence is so simple one may not even realize that it is being committed until one is served with court documents. For example, pretend your home has a very steep step leading to the front door. You are aware of this – after all, you live there – but you want to ensure the safety of all visitors to your home. Suppose each day you place a sign by the driveway that states, “Caution! Beware of steep step;” however, one day you decide to take a vacation and decide that is unnecessary to put the sign out for the duration
§ (3) A court may limit damages for foreseeable loss by excluding recovery for loss of profits, by allowing recovery only for loss incurred in reliance, or otherwise if it concludes that in the circumstances justice so requires in order to avoid disproportionate compensation.
Law and economics is an interdisciplinary field that applies economic theory to examine the formation and the impact of tort law and the tort damages. It focuses mainly on deterrence, paying little attention to justice, fairness, or distribution. It is a tool to assess the costs and benefits that UCC was looking as an outcome of setting up a plant in India - Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL) - a subsidiary of the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC). We need to determine who bears the burden of the injury and if this injury caused by UCC are compensable to what extent. Two important forms of tort law, which can be used to analyze, are Positivistic Economics and the Normative Economics. Positive economics describes how legal rules influence
“The essential purpose and most basic principle of tort law is that the plaintiff must be placed in the position he or she would have been in absent the defendant’s fault or negligence.” It is impossible to fully restore the plaintiff, as he will never be fully restored. However, compensation is the best way to put the plaintiff back into his original position. Even though most resources of the tort system are spent on dealing with claims, it is a very slow process as it is so complex because it involves many parties. It is often time consuming and expensive to file a claim, making it very cost-ineffective. The increased involvement of insurance companies has made it even more time consuming, with the introduction of their own
In short , minimum cost hypothesis does not legitimize the rule of Hadley v. Baxendale in light of the fact that in the period before rupture a buyer will improve his behavior for reasons of self-respect, and in the time of after break the purpose of the minimum cost contention is better caught by the rule of harm relief.
Perhaps the greatest insight provided by my colleague's discussion is the deconstruction of the process by which the concept of negligence did ultimately emerge as a new tort standard. Here, the discussion illustrates the challenge before a judicial body when a legal conflict appears to bring about a new and previously unforeseen point of contention. In this case, as my colleague highlights so effectively, the charge of fraud would be the only theretofore existent way of legally addressing liability for a business or organization such as the defendant in this case. The great insight provided by my colleague is in acknowledgement of the exhaustive review of existing legal documents engaged by the ruling parties and arguing parties. This process demonstrates well that even where no precedent existing for what would become the charge of negligence,