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

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 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.1 Tom intentionally played with the trolley and was careless about the safety while riding 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.2 Supermarkets as a public place will be crowded and LSOH to people will be more like what happened to Ms Torrmey They didn’t 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 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 3John rushed to help a customer named Ms Tormey who fell by hitting a 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 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367 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 usefulness4, John breached DOC to Mathew 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 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 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 6Coles is liable under VL as John did the conduct while he was working in the shop Coles can be sued by Mathew under VL SCENARIO Loan (plaintiff) v Trinh (defendant) Tortious Liability Watt v Hertfordshire CC [1954] Civil Liability Act (2002) NSW 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’ 7which is motorists-road users and owed a DOC to Loan Breach of DOC There are four requirements that must be met to determine whether Trinh violated DOC To 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 high9 Second, he 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 worstcase scenario is unlikely to result in death As a result, LSOH is medium10 Third, the COTP is light and easy 11to bear simply by slowing down and paying close attention to the surroundings Finally, the reason he rode the motorcycle while texting with his friend had nothing to with SU12 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 13 During the incident, a reasonable person might attempt to avoid an 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 Ibib Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [1980] HCA 12 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 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 Loan14 Breach of DOC To determine whether Tung violated DOC, four requirements were examined 15 To begin with, 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 high16 Next, in the event of an accident, the victim will undoubtedly suffer 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 medium17 to high Loan, in fact, received a harmful injury and a fear of being injured throughout her life Third, the COTP is light and simple 18because the defendant can simply focus on his tasks, such as attacking full two steel clips while avoiding the strong wind Finally, SU is unimportant in this case19 Tung failed 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.20If 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%) 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 Hughes21, 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 22, all simple 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 Ryan23 Considering all requirements, the original contract between Minh and Loan is unenforceable 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 area25 In this case, Huy is a Nha Trang Jump Society’s 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 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 27 First, 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 27 Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (n 9) 28 Bolton v Stone (n 10) case LSOH, on the other hand, is significantly high 29Even 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, 30such as carefully tend to spend more time collecting feedback from 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 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 Myrick31 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 33 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 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 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 not have to take full responsibility Nicole did not violate the DOC, and Nicole is exempt from all responsibilities under the Voltage of risk 33 Hackshaw v Shaw [1984] HCA 84 34 Tame v New South Wales [2002] HCA 35 35 Insurance Commissioner v Joyce [1948] HCA 17 Nicole v Joe Smith Nicole should file a lawsuit against Joe Smith that Joe Smith is more negligent in accidents by applying SOCs for professionals and the public as a veteran article However, there will also be a battle over whether Nicole violated the DOC In addition, Nicole is also injured, so Joe Smith will be held accountable Violation of DOC Nicole had an accident and suffered damage to herself It issued that the cause of this problem lies in Joe Smith car's high beam In addition, Joe Smith, as an expert driver, will file a (SOC) lawsuit for breach of duty of care (DOC) for high negligence in leaving it on, even though he understands it can interfere with the view of drivers coming from the opposite road to light In addition, Nicole complained of dizziness immediately after the accident In this regard, Joe Smith will be held responsible for violating the duty of care (DOC) for illegal negligence On the road, Joe Smith is an expert compared to Nicole Looking at the case of the higher SOC Kondis v state transport authority 36 , experts receive higher standards They have higher attention standards than ordinary people However, veteran Joe Smith will have to ask for higher negligence as he sees the lack of attention Also, Yates v Jones 37 According to the factual cause is Joe Smith car's high beams, so it is Joe Smith's problem Defense Rather, Nicole proves Simon about the Voltage of risk according to the case 38 Looking at the circumstances of the accident, dark costumes at late night 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 not have to take full responsibility Nicole did not violate the DOC, and Nicole is exempt from all responsibilities under the Voltage of risk Joe Smith v White Rock Surrey taxi company 36 Kondis v state transport authority [1984] HCA 61 37 Yates v Jones [1990] ATR 81 38 Insurance Commissioner v Joyce (n 36) 10 The intersection was dark, so I had to turn on the high beams However, a lawsuit against the environment that provided the cause of the incident may be filed with the company under subrogation responsibility VL A legitimate procedure is required to file this lawsuit First, employers are vicariously responsible for careless behavior or carelessness in the scope of employment As Mattis v Pollock 39, the employer should consider whether he or she can take sufficient responsibility given the credibility and achievements of the agent and the time he or she worked for the company Joe Smith has never had an accident while working for a company for 20 years, and this is the first accident In addition, there was no willful negligence due to the state of sufficient professional consciousness Therefore, Joe Smith has sufficient rights to hold the company responsible for subrogation, and the company must be able to pay the money instead Joe Smith acted essentially to his job, which was inevitable Also, Joe was an accident-free employee for 20 years, so he was not intentional and had enough trust to compensate for the damage Therefore, the company can pay Nicole on behalf of Joe Smith SCENARIO A Winston (Plaintiff) v Julia (Defendant) CL The crucial legal issue is whether there is a valid contract between Winston and Julia The subordinate legal issue is whether Julia can be sued by Winston under CL To find whether there is a valid contract, Smith v Hughes40 rule is applicable The next is to find whether the rules of offer are met Winston agreed to buy a book from Julia for $2500 The offer was accepted by Winston to buy the book It is an option contract though Julia agreed to keep the book for a particular time for Winston to arrange the cash, Julia sold the book to another person named O’Brien before Winston arranged the cash Winston had to give at least a small amount of money as advance, to keep the contract valid The offer was communicated between both the parties The revocation was done, and the offeree was informed by a third party named Eric So, rule of offer is not met In conclusion, there is no legal contract as one of the three important requirements for a contract to be valid is not meeting, and Winston cannot sue Julie for selling the book to another person 39 Mattis v Pollock [2004] All ER 85 40 Smith v Hughes (n 21) 11 SCENARIO 4B Sierra Foxtrot Airport v Green Grow The crucial legal issue is whether there is a valid contract between Sierra Foxtrot Airport and Green Grow The subordinate legal issue is whether Green Grow can sue Sierra Foxtrot under CL Smith v Hughes 41is relevant in determining whether there is a valid contract The next step is to determine whether the terms of the offer have been met Sierra Foxtrot Airport has issued a request for proposals for suppliers of 500kg of green seed, with a deadline of June 1st Green Grow accepted the offer, and the tender was due on May 29th The offer was not withdrawn because the Airport was concerned about this company's dependability and did not send them an acceptance letter As a result, the offer was not communicated between the two parties The revocation was not carried out as well As a result, the contract offer is not met In conclusion, there is no legal contract between Sierra Foxtrot Airport and Green Grow Sierra Foxtrot Airport v Sow This! The essential legal issue in this lawsuit is whether there is a legal contract between Saw This! and the Sierra Foxtrot airport An official from Sow This! Bid for Sierra Foxtrot Airport on May 15 Bid delivered this letter two days later, but the letter could find it one week after it was decided due to the administrative assistant's mistake Despite a week's delay, it went into the bidding box before June 1, and the airport decided that it would deliver green seeds on July 15 There is no contact point between delays caused by employee management mistakes and cancellation or rejection of contracts As a result, there is no legal responsibility between Sow This! and the airport Sierra Foxtrot Airport v Grassy Plains The legal issue is whether there is a valid legal contract between the Sierra Foxtrot and Grassy Plains The subordinate legal issue is whether Grassy Plain can be sued by the Sierra Foxtrot Airport under CL 41 Ibib 12 The Smith v Hughes 42can be applied to find if there is any validity contract The next is to analyze whether the rules of offer have been met The Sierra Foxtrot Airport sent a letter regarding the contract and the letter hasn’t reached Grassy Plains The offeror issued the contract, and the offeree didn’t accept The offer was revoked by the Airport as the reply from Grassy Plains never reached the Airport authority The offer was not communicated between both the parties So, the rule of offer is not met All the rules must be met for a contract to be valid In conclusion, The Sierra Foxtrot Airport cannot sue Grassy Plains under CL 42 Ibib 13 ... 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. .. 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. .. POH: Probability of Harm SU: social utility SCENARIO 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