It can be concluded that under TON, tom and ben can be sued by ms tormey

Tormey Plaintiff v Tom and Ben Defendant Tortious Liability The important issue is whether Tormey could sue Tom and Ben under TON as they collided Tormey with a trolley while they were

DOC: Duty of care NT: Neighbor Test SOC: Standard of care TON: Tort of Negligence VL: Vicarious Liability CN: Contributory Negligence CL: Contract Liability CLA: Civil Liability Act COTP: Cost of Taking Prevention LSOH: Likely Seriousness POH: Probability of Harm SU: social utility

SCENARIO 1

1 Ms Tormey (Plaintiff) v Tom and Ben (Defendant)

Tortious Liability

The important issue is whether Tormey could sue Tom and Ben under TON as they collided Tormey with a trolley while they were playing in the supermarket and the subordinate issue is whether Tom and Ben owe a DOC Tormey

The NT is to be done as the relationship between them is not listed in the established divisions

of DOC Tom intentionally played with the trolley and was careless about the safety while riding1 which was reasonably foreseeable and can cause danger Tormey was directly affected by the conduct of Tom and Ben, and she was harmed and heavily injured So, the test is clear that Tom and Ben owe a duty of care to Ms Tormey

The next is to find whether Tom and Ben breached the DOC to Tormey using the required SOC, and if the harm caused is serious, the SOC is also high Supermarkets as a public place will be 2

crowded and LSOH to people will be more like what happened to Ms Torrmey They didn’t do what a reasonable and precautionary person would have done There was no COTP to walk Moreover, there was no social usefulness by the act done by both Tom and Ben So, the required SOC was failed to meet and the DOC to Ms Tormey was breached by Tom and Ben

There cannot be any defense as Tom and Ben used the trolley used to move goods for playing at

a high speed with their feet up

It can be concluded that under TON, Tom and Ben can be sued by Ms Tormey

Tortious Liability

2 Mathew (Plaintiff) v John (Defendant)

The crucial legal issue is whether Mathew could sue John under TON as a bag of fruit dropped

by John in a rush to help Ms Tormey, a customer, was an obstruction on the floor and Mathew without noticing it tripped over the bag and broke his arm The subordinate legal issue is whether John owes a DOC to Mathew

The NT is to be done as the relationship between Mathew and John is not in the established divisions of DOC John rushed to help a customer named Ms Tormey who fell by hitting a3 trolley At the time he, with curiosity left a bag of fruits and Mathew without noticing it tripped over So, Mathew is directly affected by the conduct of John and owes a DOC to Mathew

1 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562

2 Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367

3 Donoghue v Stevenson (n 1)

The next is to find whether the DOC is breached by John to Mathew using the required SOC The probability of occurring harm is less as a Fruit bag can be easily noticed, but the harm occurred to Mathew while he was looking at the shelf and walking The LSOH is low to medium

as the worst possible harm will be falling and breaking bones or a cut There is no COTP as there

is no expense on moving a bag aside But the act done by Mathew is for a sort of SU as a customer was hit by a trolley and seriously harmed But all other factors of SOC don't meet except social usefulness , John breached DOC to Mathew.4

Defense

John could file a defense showing Mathew was CN as he didn’t notice the fruit bag on the floor and a person in the same position would have noticed on the floor and walk away CLA 2002 5 Moreover, the conduct of John was to help the injured person so his liability could be reduced

Mathew will not be successful in completely suing John as he was negligent, and the liability will be shared by both the plaintiff and defendant

3 Mathew (Plaintiff) v Coles (Defendant)

Vicarious Liability

The legal issue is whether Coles violated VL with Mathew as a staff member dropped a bag of fruits and Mathew got injured by tripping on it

The NT is not required as there is an established relationship between John and Coles as John, the staff of the shop dropped a fruit bag and caused harm to a customer in order to assist another customer who got harmed by hitting a trolley Coles is liable under VL as John did the conduct6 while he was working in the shop

Coles can be sued by Mathew under VL

SCENARIO 2

1 Loan (plaintiff) v Trinh (defendant)

Tortious Liability

4 Watt v Hertfordshire CC [1954].

5 Civil Liability Act (2002) NSW

6 Century Insurance v Northern Island Road Transport Board [1942] 72 LI.L.Rep 119

Whether Loan can sue Trinh for his violation of TON in causing harm to Loan for losing control

of the motorbike and hitting Loan (crucial issue) and whether Trinh breached a DOC to Loan (subordinate issue)

DOC

Trinh drove the motorbike while texting with his friend and hitting Loan, the road user, of negligence Therefore, he satisfied the ‘NT’ which is motorists-road users and owed a DOC to7 Loan

Breach of DOC

There are four requirements that must be met to determine whether Trinh violated DOC To8.

begin with, the motorcycle was driven at the speed limit while the drivers were not paying attention to the road, which could result in serious injury As a result, POH is high Second, he9 lost control and hit Loan, who was drunk and suddenly fell into the lane road, with a motorcycle, causing the victim to suffer from a blistered arm for the rest of the day However, even the worst-case scenario is unlikely to result in death As a result, LSOH is medium Third, the 10 COTP is light and easy to bear simply by slowing down and paying close attention to the surroundings.11 Finally, the reason he rode the motorcycle while texting with his friend had nothing to do with

SU 12 Trinh failed to meet the required SOC and breached his DOC to Loan after analyzing the four requirements

Defense

Trinh could establish a contributory negligence defense by demonstrating that Loan's negligence contributed to her injury During the incident, a reasonable person might attempt to avoid an 13 incredibly quick object However, there is a lack of evidence that Loan saw Trinh arriving As a result, Trinh would be unable to decrease his liability

Trinh violated the DOC by striking Loan He must be to blame for Loan's injuries

7 Ibib

8 Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [1980] HCA 12.

9 Bolton v Stone[1951] AC 850

10 Paris v Stepney Borough Council (n 2)

11 Latimer v AEC [1953]

12 Watt v Hertfordshire CC (n 4).

13 Ingram v Britten [1994] QSC 144

2 Loan (plaintiff) v Tung (defendant)

Tortious Liability

The crucial legal issue is whether Loan can successfully sue Tung under TON when forgot the steel attack between him and Loan in the first jump And the subordinate issue is whether Loan has any contribution to negligence for her injury

DOC

Tung is a parachute trainer of Loan; he forgot to attack one of two steel clips between him and Loan which led Loan to break her leg Thus, Tung owes a DOC to Loan 14

Breach of DOC

To determine whether Tung violated DOC, four requirements were examined To begin with,15 everyone understands that someone would be injured if they fell from a height far above the ground, particularly if they used a parachute Furthermore, because this is Loan's first parachute jump, she could easily collide with people if she loses control and is severely injured As a result,

the risk of harm is high Next, in the event of an accident, the victim will undoubtedly suffer16 from mild to severe injuries because of the falling space far from the ground The worst-case scenario is likely to result in death As a result, the LSOH is medium to high Loan, in fact,17 received a harmful injury and a fear of being injured throughout her life Third, the COTP is light and simple because the defendant can simply focus on his tasks, such as attacking full two18 steel clips while avoiding the strong wind Finally, SU is unimportant in this case Tung failed19

to meet the required SOC and breached DOC after analyzing the four requirements

Defense

14 Donoghue v Stevenson (n 1)

15 Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (n 9).

16 Bolton v Stone(n 10)

17 Paris v Stepney Borough Council (n 2)

18 Latimer v AEC (n 12)

19 Watt v Hertfordshire CC (n 4).

According to Ingram v Britten. If the plaintiff is found to have associated to their own injury, responsibility will be assigned to both the defendant and the plaintiff Loan could raise her contributory defense in this case because she should have known she was drunk and suffering from the previous accident with Trinh., she might get serious harm if she takes part in high-risk sport, so she must delay or cancel the ticket and take good care of herself Hence, the plaintiff was also negligent along with the defendant’s negligence

Loan's lawsuit against Tung will not be completely successful Because both parties were negligent, liability will be shared equally by the plaintiff (50%) and the defendant (50%)

3 Loan (plaintiff) v Minh (defendant)

The crucial issue is whether there was an enforceable contract between Loan and Minh

Contract Liability

To begin, we must thoroughly investigate whether the contract between Minh and Loan was legally binding The relevant legal rule used to determine whether both parties agreed is taken from Smith v Hughes 21, which mentioned that an offer must be made and accepted by the offeree

in order for an agreement to be made It is not clear that there was a meeting of mind between Minh and Loan Because Minh gave Loan a contract stating that she must be aware of the dangers of the parachute and asked her to sign it To persuade her to sign the contract, Minh mentioned that Loan could have a training period before jumping with the parachute, despite the fact that he was aware of some negative feedback about Loan's trainer performance As a result, Loan signed the contract quickly There is obviously no consideration from Loan in this case All simple contracts must have consideration, and no consideration equals no contract , all simple22 contracts must have consideration, and no consideration equals no contract Furthermore, Loan was inebriated prior to arriving at the Nha Trang Jump Company Because the drunk gave her a headache and caused her to fall onto the road, she can obviously claim that she lacks intellectual

capacity while intoxicated The contract between Minh and Loan is voidable under Blomley v Ryan 23

Considering all requirements, the original contract between Minh and Loan is unenforceable

4 Huy (plaintiff) v Nha Trang Jump Society (defendant)

Vicarious liability

20 Ingram v Britten (n 14)

21 Smith v Hughes [1871] LR6QB 597

22 Chappell &co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1960] AC 87

23 Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362

The crucial issue is whether the company violated VL with Huy because Loan’s uncontrolled parachute caused harm to him

DOC

Huy is Nha Trang Jump Society’s employee, he got injured while doing his job Thus, Nha Trang and Huy have a relationship as ‘NT’ 24

An employer is vicariously liable for damages incurred by the negligence of the employee if this harmful act was carried out within the job area In this case, Huy is a Nha Trang Jump Society’s25 staff, he was performing an approved job for the company's advantage and get injured while doing the company’s job Thus, the company was under VL for Huy’s injury

Huy can sue the company under VL successfully

5 Loan (plaintiff) v Nha Trang Jump Society (defendant)

Vicarious Liability

Whether Loan can successfully sue Nha Trang Jump Society under TON when they hire a trainer who has a lot of complaints from customers about the trainer being rushed and being distracted

in training and let him train for Loan which led to Loan’s broken leg

DOC

The first question is whether the Nha Trang Jump Society owed Loan a DOC The defendant owed the plaintiff a DOC because there is a clear ‘NT’ relationship 26

Breach of DOC

Four factors are considered when determining whether the defendant violated the DOC First,27

POH is likely moderately low because the Nha Trang Jump Society would not monitor the staff

performance28 Furthermore, the trainer was a highly experienced parachute instructor in this

24 Donoghue v Stevenson (n 1)

25 Century Insurance v Northern Island Road Transport Board (n 6)

26 Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna [1987] HCA 7

27 Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (n 9).

28 Bolton v Stone(n 10)

case LSOH, on the other hand, is significantly high Even though a very skilled parachute trainer has experience training in an army, he has a lot of complaints from his customers, and he could easily lose attention in some situations, putting patients in dangerous situations Third,

COTP was simple and low, such as carefully tend to spend more time collecting feedback from30 customers Ultimately, it has a large SU because Nha Trang Jump Society is an entertainment service provider, which means that many people can use it If they had not even checked the trainer's performance, there might have been a lot of unsaved staff As a result of failing to meet SOC, the defendant breached the DOC owed to the plaintiff

Loan can sue Nha Trang Jump Society under TON because the harm caused by breach was satisfied

SCENARIO 3

1 Joe Smith v Simon

Simon must determine whether Joe Smith violated the SOC or whether Defendant was negligent In addition, Joe Smith will object to Simon whether he is liable for negligence

DOC

Joe Smith followed the existing contract obligations under the current law by the case of Extruding contractual duty Stilk v Myrick 31 Five people could not be picked up because there were four seat belts, and with sufficient explanation, Simon's party refused to ride The taxi driver's normal work was handled, and this was delivered to Smith with sufficient reasons, and it was the right action to obey the law However, Simon suddenly stepped out of the vehicle's back due to an emotional appeal against rejection He tried to argue with Joe Smith, which is beyond Joe Smith's perception of attention Currently, there is no negligence of Joe Smith in that he did not intend to threaten Simon 32

Defence

29 Paris v Stepney Borough Council (n 2)

30 Latimer v AEC (n 12)

31 Stilk v Myrick [1809] 170 ER 1168

32 Paris v Stepney Borough Council (n 2)

Simon is a reasonably predictable threat, and Joe Simon can defend against defects Even veteran Joe Smith would not have been able to control Simon's accident due to his unexpected behavior, so Simon has no right to hold Joe Smith accountable

Simon is a victim of his unexpected behavior Joe Smith did not violate the SOC Simon, who rushed emotionally, cannot hold Smith accountable because he is a legitimate denial of ride

2 Nicole v Simon

For Nicole hitting Simon by car, Simon should check with Nicole whether the SOC violated the DOC In addition, Nicole should apply the CN to Simon to determine whether Defendant is

at fault or not Also, Nicole will be held responsible for Simon's negligence by being injured

DOC

To determine whether Nicole violated the SOC, four requirements must be met First, the Defendant's condition was sober without drinking, and normal judgment could be made

According to Tame v New South Wales 34, his relationship with Simon was piggyback, had no intention of harming him, had sufficient cognitive ability and judgment, but he hit Simon, who suffered many injuries to his body However, his dark clothes late at night, the lights from the taxi, and the situation from the back of the car seem difficult to prevent the incident based on the driving standards of ordinary people Finally, in the car's sudden stop, it was late but recognized, indicating that it was not predicted and prevented, and that it was not an accident Therefore, Nicole had sufficient duty of care and did not violate the DOC based on the SOC

Defense

Rather, Nicole proves Simon the Voluntary Assumption of Risk per the Insurance Commissioner v Joyce 35 Looking at the circumstances of the accident, dark costumes at late night do not come into the driver's sight, and sudden appearance from the back of the vehicle is rather an act that threatens the driver In addition, Nicole is sane, aware of the risk of sudden braking, and the Plaintiff voluntarily took on the risk Therefore, you do not have to take full responsibility

Nicole did not violate the DOC, and Nicole is exempt from all responsibilities under the Voltage

of risk

33Hackshaw v Shaw [1984] HCA 84

34 Tame v New South Wales [2002] HCA 35

35Insurance Commissioner v Joyce [1948] HCA 17