Essay Available:
Pages:
5 pages/≈1375 words
Sources:
0
Style:
Other
Subject:
Law
Type:
Essay
Language:
English (U.K.)
Document:
MS Word
Date:
Total cost:
$ 21.6
Topic:
Tort Law
Essay Instructions:
Please use OSCOLA referencing. This is a Tort exam, so as such include topics such as duty of care, negligence, breach, damage etc.
Texxon plc own and operate a large oil refinery and depot. The transfer of oil and
petrol at the site is monitored and controlled from a control room in the main
building. At any given time, two Texxon employees are on duty to operate the
control room. One afternoon, John and Kathy are on duty in the control room. John
carelessly fails to notice that one of the gauges he is expected to monitor shows
that there is a serious problem and fails to shut down operations. There is then a
gigantic explosion, on a part of the site well away from the control room. Several
buildings on the site are burned down and there are a number of deaths and
injuries on the site. If operations had been shut down by John, there would have
been no explosion. It is subsequently established that the problem which led to
the explosion was not anyone’s fault.
In addition, each of the following survivors develops a recognised psychiatric
illness as a result of his or her experiences on the day.
(a) Kathy never returns to work as a result of what has happened to the
victims. One of those killed is Kathy’s husband, Luke, whom she knew was
working at the site. After the explosion, she left the control room and found
his body half an hour later after searching through the rubble.
(b) Mark, a workman on the site, sees a fireball coming towards him and fears
for his own safety. In fact, the fireball stops well short of him.
(c) Nell, a firefighter employed by Texxon, enters a blazing building to rescue
another Texxon employee. She is not physically injured, but she already has
moderate depression, and this is made worse.
(d) Orlando, who is employed as a security guard by Texxon, lives in a house
on the site that he rents. He sees it burned to the ground. He is devastated,
as all his personal possessions are destroyed, including his collection of six
hundred new in-box action figures, which he has built up since he was a
child.
In addition, Luke’s stepmother, Patricia, who lives with Luke and Kathy and who
was at home at the time of the accident, develops a recognised psychiatric illness
as the result of her bereavement.
Texxon accept that John was negligent in failing to shut down operations and that
they are vicariously liable for that negligence.
Advise Kathy, Mark, Neil, Orlando, and Patricia as to whether a duty of care was
owed to them by John. Advise Luke’s estate as to whether a duty of care was owed
to Luke by John.
Essay Sample Content Preview:
Tort Law: The Texxon Explosion Case
Name
Course
Institution
Date
Tort Law: The Exxon Explosion Case
The analysis of the duty of care in the Texxon plc explosion raises questions about what is owed to each individual affected by the explosion. In this case, John is centered on the duty of acre assessment. The behavior of John before the explosion can be examined if it amounts to a duty of care. In this analysis, emphasis is put on establishing a duty of care, which involves a demonstration that the claimant was reasonably foreseeable to be affected by the actions of the defendant. In that essence, analyzing a duty of care, in this case, will be settled based on the tests outlined in such determinations as the incremental approach, the Caparo test, and the neighbor principal. Having explored the above tests, the analysis determines the appropriate advice for Kathy, Mark, Neil, Orlando, and Patricia as to whether a duty of care was owed to them by John. Additionally, the analysis extends to advise Luke’s estate as to whether a duty of care was owed to Luke by John.
Negligence and Duty of Care Breach
In tort law, establishing negligence is paramount to determining the existence of a duty of care or its breach. Further, an assessment of negligence in tort law extends to causation and the damages associated with the breach. The basis of this analysis, to that extent, is a determination of whether a duty of care exists in the first place. To that extent, the law can rely on the test in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605. The Caparo test bears three parts that outline the existence of a duty of care in claims of negligence. Primarily, the claimant must prove the foreseeability of harm. In this proof, the claimant must show that there was foreseeable harm or injury as a consequence of the omissions, commissions, or actions of the defendant. This element is satisfied should a reasonable individual in the position of the defendant predict that his/her actions would likely cause injury or harm to someone.
The Caparo test also demands that the claimant proves proximity as well as fairness, justice, and reasonability in negligence claims. The element of proximity implies that negligence is proven only if there is a sufficient proximate or close relationship between the defendant and the claimant. Proximity, in this element, can imply a direct relationship, physical closeness between the parties, or a situation in which the actions of the defendant affect the claimant directly. Thirdly, the claimant must prove that the claim is fair, just, and reasonable. This third element is explored in judicial systems to emphasize consideration of public policy reasons for choosing to impose or not impose a duty of care. The third element of the Caparo test is made to limit the possibility of claims or duties that, if guaranteed, could be detrimental to various industries or society at large. Importantly, the Caparo test is an elaboration of the other tests, especially, Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 or the neighbor principle.
Advice Based on the Caparo Test
Kathy, Mark, and Nell
The claims by Kathy, Mark, and Nell can be assessed on various aspects of Caparo’s test. In exploring foreseeabi...
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now: