Case 1: A MILKMAN EMPLOYED A BOY AGED 13 TO HELP HIM ON HIS MILK ROUND DESPITE HIS EMPLOYER

EXPRESS INSTRUCTION NOT TO DO SO. DUE TO MILKMAN ’S' NEGLIGENT DRIVING THE BOY WAS INJURED .

The given case of milk man shows his violation over taking a 13 year old boy on his
milk round and also his negligence when his careless driving led to that boy getting injured.

According to law of tort (222), the harmful results occurring due to negligence are
always compensated with liability referring to vicarious liability and health and safety
implications. In insurance, when one is negligent they may be liable for the result of their
negligence.

Vicarious liability doesn't necessarily require that the employer was negligent in any
way themselves. Vicarious liability is a doctrine of law that asserts that the actions of an
agent are essentially the same as the actions of the principle directing the agent. This means
that an employer is considered to be the "principle", and when the employer tells employees
(the agents) to do something, it is just as if the principle is the one acting. Of course, this rule
only applies if the agent is actually in the process of doing something for the principle at the
time when the accident happened. In the given case, milk man is the principle, whereas boy is
the agent. However, he cannot be held vicariously liable for going out with milk man despite
of warning to do so hold by employer express instructions.

Vicarious liability is a legal concept which refers to one party being held liable for the
injury or damage sustained by another party. The intent behind vicarious liability is to hold
the proper party accountable when harm is committed.

Above scenario is one of the two common possible vicarious liability relationships i.e.
employer/employee. This is the possible vicarious liability relationship here because in given
case, one party (milkman) has control over the other party (boy).

Here, milk man is liable to provide harms to boy i.e. the victim. The boy, for sure,
needs compensation and the law provides so by applying the principle of ‘qui facit per alium
facit per se’ that means he who acts through another shall deemed to have acted on his
own, the courts thus hold the milkman as per the situ ation.

Now, in order to held milkman liable for boy’s injuries in terms of health and safety
implication, a case of Ryan v. New York Central Railroad can be considered. According to it,
milkman is liable for the consequences of his own wrong acts i.e. violating the law and taking
younger boy on ride and driving negligently leading to injuries to him. He is thus liable in
damages for the proximate results of his own acts i.e. injuries occurred to the boy.

Case 2: MRS . S AIMA OWNS A HOUSE WHICH IS CURRENTLY BEING RENOVATED AND CONVERTED INTO A
LEISURE COMPLEX BY NATIONAL BUILDERS , A LOCAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN LAHORE.

ONE EVENING A BOY CALLED ALI ATTEMPTS TO CLIMB OVER THE HIGH WALL SURROUNDING THE HOUSE , IN
ORDER TO HAVE A LOOK AROUND THE SITE. IN DOING SO HE TEARS HIS JACKET AND CUTS HIS ARM ON A RUSTY
BARBED WIRE FENCE LAID AROUND THE TOP OF THE WALL .

ON THE DAY FOLLOWING ALI’S INJURY , A HMED A LOCAL AUTHORITY BUILDINGS INSPECTOR VISITS THE SITE TO
INSPECT N ATIONAL BUILDER ’ S WORK. HE IS INJURED BY A TILE WHICH FALLS FROM THE ROOF OF THE HOUSE.

The following liabilities are applicable to the occupier of premises i.e. Mrs. Saima:

 Mrs Saima is not liable to the injuries occurred to the buy since he was a trespasser
and no such liability can be occurred to the occupier. This is so because no such
duties regarding liability are declared in the Occupier’s liability 1957 act i.e.

“An occupier of premises owes the same duty, the common duty of care, to all his
visitors, except in so far as he is free to and does extend, restrict, modify or exclude
his duty to any visitor or visitors by agreement or otherwise.”

 She is do liable to injuries occurred to Ahmed, a local authority building inspector,

since he was officially allowed to visit the site and inspect the contractor i.e. National
builder’s work. Since it is stated in Occupier’s liability 1957 act:

“Duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see
that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for
which he is invited or permitted to be there”.

 The liability is the homeowner's, because she negligently allowed building inspector
to inspect her home during the process of renovation. She is under “occupier’s
liability” since it was her responsibility to take care of the people on her premises.
  In terms of negligence activities, she is liable under the general principles of
negligence.

Case 3: AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER WRITES A BOOK FOR THE GENERAL PUBLICATION ON THE SAFE USE OF
ELECTRICITY . T HE ADVICE GIVEN IS GENERALLY SOUND BUT THERE ARE CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH

PRECAUTIONS NOT MENTIONED IN THE BOOK SHOULD BE TAKEN.

The tort of negligence is based upon following elements:

o Duty
o Breach
o Scope of liability
o Intentional tort

 Application of particular elements of the tort of negligence on given

scenario:

The application of the above mentioned negligence tort elements to the given
scenario are explained here under:

 Duty:
According to MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916), it is the general
duty of the manufacturer, in this case, the electrical engineer to act reasonably
to protect his readers who may read his book. Since, he did not mentioned
precautions regarding using electricity which might result in harmful after-
effects on the readers, the electrical engineer is thus held liable for sharing
inappropriate dangerous knowledge to the readers.

 Breach:
 There is a foreseeable risk of harm that might be brought by
incomplete knowledge shared by the author. The custom evidence is his book.
Thus he is held liable for it.

 Scope of liability:
In order to perform a foresight test, it can be well seen that the
consequences of the absent knowledge in book does not depict unforeseeable
consequences. The harm seen that might occur due to it can be on large scale
since it involves use of electricity. This shows that liability can be cut off but
to a little extent due to next following point stated below:

 Intentional tort:
The author seems to act intentionally in omitting the precautions at
some places since he either thought of them as unimportant precautions to be
measured or he knew from a substantial degree that what consequence might
occur in future.

 Practical application of particular elements of the tort of negligence

by quoting examples from given scenario:

 Duty to protect:
It is the author’s first responsibility to anticipate foreseeable dangers and take
necessary precautions to protect readers.

 Failure in exercising standard care:

It is the second element that proves negligence. In given case, the electrical
engineer failed to present proper care by omitting precautions in certain important
cases.

 Proximate cause:
 This element focuses on the concept of foreseeability. In given scenario, the
electrical engineer knew himself the possible consequences and thus must be held
liable for them.

 Actual injury:
It is no necessary that injury need to be physical. It must be real as opposed to
imaginary. In given scenario, the injury can be easily foreseen which proves his
liability for cut shorting the important precautions in his book.

 Application of Law on Standard form contracts quoting examples:

Standard form contract is a type of contract which is legally binding agreement

between two parties to do a certain thing, in which one side has all the bargaining power
and uses it to write the contract primarily to his or her advantage.

A standardized contract form offers goods or services to consumers on essentially

a "take it or leave it" basis without giving consumers realistic opportunities to negotiate
terms that would benefit their interests. When this occurs, the consumer cannot obtain the
desired product or service unless he or she acquiesces to the form contract. Thus, they are
so unfair to the weaker party that a court will refuse to enforce them.

An example would be severe penalty provisions for failure to pay loan

installments promptly that are physically hidden by small print located in the middle of an
obscure paragraph of a lengthy loan agreement. In such a case a court can find that there
is no meeting of the minds of the parties to the contract and that the weaker party has not
accepted the terms of the contract.

Some other examples of standard form contracts are home security system
monitoring, attendance at a professional sports event, the residential lease on an
apartment, or a life insurance policy. In each of these cases, the seller is offering a
product or service, acceptance of which is contingent upon accepting certain terms and
conditions as is, without negotiation. If the buyer expresses a desire to make changes to
the contract, the seller will simply refuse and find another buyer. Indeed, in the case of a
professional sporting event, the contract is printed on the back of the ticket, and purchase
of the ticket implies acceptance of the contract.

 Comparison of Tortious liability and Contractual liability along with

examples:

A tortious liability is related to the duty of care, and negligence of that duty, with
respect to persons with whom there is no contractual liability. It is based on duties fixed
by law.

For example, if a person fails to maintain his property and part of his property falls off
and injures another person, the property owner is liable for the damages to that person,
even though it may be a passerby with whom there are no contractual obligations.

On the other hand, a contractual liability is created when two or more parties
promise certain things to each other. It is imposed by the terms of a contract.

For example, a person may engage someone to clean their house in exchange for an
agreed amount of money. If either party defaults on the agreement, that is breach of
contract and legal remedies are available to the 'injured' party.

 Comparison of Strict liability and Tortious liability along with

examples:

Strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault.

The plaintiff must show that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible.
Strict liability means that your own negligence is not an issue. Normally, you are required
to prove negligence to recover for a tort.

For example, consider an airplane analogy. If a plane crash occurs, you know it is
not the fault of the passenger, so the fault is strict liability with the airline or plane
manufacturer.
 Tortuous liability is the legal obligation of one party to a victim as a results of
a civil wrong or injury. This action requires some form of remedy from a court system. A
tort liability arises because of a combination of directly violating a person's rights and the
transgression of a public obligation causing damage or a private wrong
doing. Evidence must be evaluated in a court hearing to identify who the liable party is in
the case.

For example, if a person fails to maintain his property and part of his property
falls off and injures another person, the property owner is liable for the damages to that
person, even though it may be a passerby with whom there are no contractual obligations.
 Work cited

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:WBq0u1zbtqQJ:suraj.lums.edu.pk/~pco/
%3Fgo%3Ddownload%26path%3D%252F2011-2012%252FFall%2BSemester%2B2011-
2012%26file%3DLAW%2B222-Law%2Bof
%2BTort.pdf+&hl=en&gl=pk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjHeak4FZglY7kxLp5YH3JLYS
mXI93iCWzlHF5EeN3Tktxa9xs03F0B-h6kL5rol44NXYFIW3oE-
ILGAe2OCKGbzkdPZ6zu_e6qdv-
epsWaeDX7HeaCNmsVo9P08bHiiEAhGRiC&sig=AHIEtbTNHhYm_pTR_9rIwq6jRJy4
AZj-xQ

https://vpn.lums.edu.pk/
+CSCO+00756767633A2F2F636265676E792E79687A662E7271682E6378+
+/sites/Library/Course%20Reserves/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fsites
%2fLibrary%2fCourse%20Reserves%2fLAW%2fFall%20Semester%2012-
13&FolderCTID=&View=%7b946D4B62-D503-4E1F-A26D-EECA0EFF858A%7d

http://personalinsure.about.com/od/insurancetermsglossary/g/Vicarious-Liability.htm

http://www.alllaw.com/resources/car-accident-claims/employer-liability.htm

http://www.lawteacher.net/PDF/ELCIA%201969.pdf

https://www.google.com.pk/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&ved=0CGAQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F
%2Fwww.routledgelaw.com%2Ftextbooks%2F9780415458467%2Fdownloads
%2Foccupiers.ppt&ei=_asoUZXNJ8Or0QW4jIHwCg&usg=AFQjCNH-
9SWfcvLvECCfpDwcESFM0J3i8g&sig2=ra-HoaKSveI9T4Iq1KVWEg&bvm=bv.42768644,d.Yms

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111231054105AARjapz

http://www.lawteacher.net/tort-law/essays/tort-liability-for-premises.php

http://law.wustl.edu/sba/firstyearoutlines/torts/Unknown/TORTS_OUTLINE.pdf

http://cecp.air.org/interact/authoronline/february99/3.htm

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Standard+form+contract

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-standard-form-contract.htm

http://www.reference.com/motif/society/explain-contractual-liability

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/tort-liability.html
http://www.lawqa.com/qa/what-difference-between-strict-liability-and-tortuous-liability