Script nhóm 5 môn Tort law

Bài làm của nhóm 5 lớp CLC 41B, giáo viên giảng dạy: Hà Thị Thanh Bình. File đã bao gồm đề bài và nội dung bài thuyết trình. Thành viên: Khưu Hồng Linh Ôn Tuệ Minh Nguyễn Tường Giáng My Trần Thuyết My

Script TORT LAW Lecturer: Assoc.Prof Ha Thi Thanh Binh Class: CLC41B Khưu Hồng Linh Ôn Tuệ Minh Nguyễn tường Giáng My Trần Tuyết My 1653801013093 SCFIPT OF GROUP * My’s part: i Table of content - Overview about the case - FIRAC Fomula: + List the FACTS + Spot the ISSUES + Find the RULE(s) + ANALYZE the elements + Give the CONCLUSION - Case under Vietnamese Law FACTS: Overview the case: Healing Inc recently opened an anti-stress clinic on the edge of the village of Springvale Farmer Oswald’s arable farm is immediately adjacent to the clinic’s premise, which includes a swimming pool For three weeks during the summer, Grinders Farming Contractors Ltd are employed by Oswald to bring in the harvest The work involves daily use of huge machines The noise of the machinery upsets the clinic’s patients, many of whom cancel expensive course of treatment The dust and dirt from the harvesting process forms a thick film on the swimming pool making it unusable, and clogs the filter causing it to break down and require expensive repairs Ned, one of the Grinders’ employees, drops a cigarette end which starts a fire in the field It spreads into the clinic’s grounds and destroys a summer house Using U.S law, advise Healing Inc about its possible rights in tort Would your answer be different if Vietnamese law applies? There are master – servant relationships - Oswald (employer) and Grinders Farming Contractors Ltd (employee) - Grinders Farming Contractors Ltd (employer) and Ned (employee) LEGAL ISSUE (under vicarious liability) Whether GFC and Osawld are liable for damages caused by Grinders Farming Contractors Ltd 2 Whether Ned and Grinders Farming Contractors Ltd are liable for damages cause by Ned * Linh’s part: RULES Applied for Oswald and Grinders Farming Contractors Ltd - Section 822, Chapter 40 Nuisance: - If a person who unintentionally invade of another’s interest in the private use and enjoyment of land by negligent or reckless conduct, or for abnormally dangerous activities, then he is liable for a private nuisance - “Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas” doctrine - Section 409 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts: the employer of an independent contractor is not liable for physical harm caused to another by an act or omission of the contractor or his servants + Section 410-429: exceptions of section 409, the employer still has liability for the acts of independent contractor and its employees Applied for Ned and Grinders Farming Contractors Ltd - Tort of negligence doctrine - Respondeat superior: An employer or principal legally responsible for the weongful acts of an employee or agent, if such acts occur within the scope of the employment or agency ANALYZE I GFC AND OSWALD’S LIABILITY FOR GFC’s ACTION: elements to prove a private nuisance Interference with the use or enjoyment of land or some right over it: The harvesting process (with daily usage of huge harvester) of GFC has caused damages to: • The clinic’s pool and its filter, which required expensive repair • The clinic’s clients by noise, made them upset, that caused the financial loss for the clinic Unlawful interference/unreasonableness: i Damages and Location of the Plaintiff's and Defendant's Premises: • The clinic is next to farm and its field • GFC may had conducted these harvesting before Healing inc built the clinic • Still, GFC has violated the rights of the clinic and its clients:  Right to have clean air  A person is not required to tolerate an excessive level of noise which is unreasonable nuisance ii Public benefit of the defendant's activity: We assume that Oswald’s farm is a private farm, which is operated for personal profit, not for the benefit of the public iii Extraordinary sensitivity on the part of the plaintiff • The clinic of Healing Inc is an anti-stress clinic, which requires the silence from surrounding areas • But the amount of dust/dirt and noise can be considered to be excessive, higher than reasonably expectation of an average person’s endurance (by using large harvester) Continuous interference GFC had been harvesting for weeks in the summer until there was a fire caused by Ned  We can consider that this interference is substantial Our conclusion is that GFC has caused a private nuisance 4 Oswald’s liability: Because the GFC ltd is an independent contractor (hence the name) so Oswald, as an employer, won’t be liable for the damages caused by GFC, according to section 409 of Restatement (Second) of Torts (there are some exceptions from sections 410 to 429 but after analyzing, we don’t see this case belong to any rule in that)  Oswald isn’t reliable for the damages caused by GFC, GFC has to take responsibility for itself  ... grounds and destroys a summer house Using U.S law, advise Healing Inc about its possible rights in tort Would your answer be different if Vietnamese law applies? There are master – servant relationships... ISSUES + Find the RULE(s) + ANALYZE the elements + Give the CONCLUSION - Case under Vietnamese Law FACTS: Overview the case: Healing Inc recently opened an anti-stress clinic on the edge of the... nuisance - “Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas” doctrine - Section 409 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts: the employer of an independent contractor is not liable for physical harm caused to another