The common law liability
A common law is an unendorsed law that have been made up and expanded by the courts through a period of a long time and then molded into rules and regulations, and moral codes.
Tort of Negligence
In this type of law, the responsibility lies on the claimant by showing the evidence of the mistakes done by the defendant. The cynosure is to put the defendant under a test if he conducted unfairly towards the claimant in a situation whereby an obligation was indebted. In the law, the claimant must show the evidence that: the accused had the duty to care for him; that the consequences of the accident that he suffered was as a result of the violation of that duty; that the accused violated that customary care; and that the accused has a responsibility of that specific care that he is looked upon. However, there are three circumstances whereby the defendant may be held responsible for the consequences as a resultant of the injuries. They are: the violation of the Statutory Duty; individual responsibility of the master (employer); and the explicit responsibility of the employer.
In the Amer’s case whereby he was using the power saw and cut his arm as a resultant of Rani carelessly throwing a tool, the case can be compared to The Electrochrome v Welsh Plastics 1968. In the case, there was a lorry that was driven carelessly and it ended up, crashing into a fire hydrant. As a consequence, a neighboring factory’s water supply was temporarily terminated and therefore the company was shut off till the water was restored and to cushion himself from the losses, the accuser sued for the damages left. The final decision was that since the fire hydrant didn’t belong to accuser’s property the accused couldn’t be held accountable. Same case applies to the one whereby Rani threw carelessly a tool to Amer. Rani threw the tool but Amer was responsible for his own injuries.
”When a claimant sues in tort claiming damages as compensation for loss, he must normally prove his loss. But the necessary basis of his claim is that he has suffered a wrong. Since in the case there has no injuria (wrong) which gives a remedy, then the case of the Amer and Rani cant be given any form of damnum (damage amount) and therefore the accused cant held accountable or responsible.
In the case of Ahmed who left to work on his own and defied the company not to lift the machinery on his own but he went ahead, the action can be categorized as a consequence resulting from the act of the claimant. The law under this section states that the deeds of the accuser may terminate the cycle of causation. Under the act of claimant, it is noted that,”…where the act is reasonable and in the ordinary course of things, an act by the accuser will not break the chain.”(Page 233)
The Ahmed case is compared to a similar case that was done in 1969 by McKew at Holland Ltd. The accuser suffered from an hurt leg and when working at that company, failed to ask for help in her duties. When the accuser was maneuvering a flight of stairs, he was injured more. By the fact that the accuser refused to seek aid, was irresponsible and that mere act was responsible to terminate the chain of causation. The suit that would be filed by Ahmed would be ineffective because he had already been advised by the management of the company to be assisted by another person. Therefore the case could be ruled against him and he wouldn’t be compensated because the act was foreseeable and avoidable.
On the case that Adnan was using a screwdriver that looked faultless only for it to broke out and a fragment of flying fragment to hit his eye and injure him.This case can fall under two categories: strict liability and (or) vicarious liability and agency.This case argues that if a person possesses something that is likely to do mischief, he does keep it at his own risk. This case falls under the category of vicarious liability and agency. The law argues that if a act is performed by an agent under his authority, then the one in authority will be liable or will be held accountable. In that case the company that employs Adnan will be responsible and it will be responsible for the compensation of Adnan.
In the Bill’s workstation case, whereby the oil leaks and no matter what happens to the management nothing happens and he slips and injures his wrist. The case can be categorized under vicarious liability and agency. This case proposes that an accused will be responsible for an act committed by an agent acting under his authority. The company that employs Bill would be held responsible not only because it neglected the plea by Bill, but also because Bill was injured when he was in the duty of the company’s purposes.