這是我們在2018年為英國謝菲爾德大學的學弟學妹們創作的一篇基礎法律的範文,首先交代case題目,布魯克是否在對谷市議會的疏忽中擁有合法權利?
Case 1
Issue:
Whether Brooke has legal rights in negligence against the Valley City Council?
再來列舉相關rules,也就是解釋行使適當和合理義務的失敗將導致侵權責任法中的責任。 在侵權法中形成責任有幾個必要的要素:謹慎義務,違背義務,事實因果關係,偏遠,共同過失,損害賠償。
Rule:
The failure of exercising appropriate and reasonable duty will lead to liabilities in tort law of negligence. There are several necessary elements to be established to form the liabilities in tort law: duty of care, breach of duty, factual causation, remoteness, contributory negligence, damages.
1. The reasonable foreseeability test applied in Australia to test the duty of care (Wicks v State Rail Authority of New South Wales [2010] HCA 22).
2. The breach of duty element requires the defendant to act below the standard of care (Vairy v Wyong Shire Council(2005) 223 CLR 422).
3. The factual causation element requires the defendant’s behavior actually causes the plaintiff’s injury. The “But for” test and common sense test applied (Haber v Walker [1963] VR 339).
4. The damages will not be recovered if the negligent act is too remote to the damages (Wagon Mound No 1 [1961] AC 388).
5. If the plaintiff has negligence to his own injuries, then the liability to the defendant might be reduced (Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB 286).
6. The plaintiff must prove the loss in order to apply for compensation (Todorovic v Waller (1981) 150 CLR 402, 412).
再來進行分析,首先,VCC有責任為游泳湖負責休閑目的。 VCC可以合理地預見到,由於缺乏並不總是很深的,VCC會意識到有人可能在湖中受傷和受傷。 其次,VCC的行為低於標準護理,而在這種情況下,一個合理的人可能會做出更多的跡象來識別深部和淺部。 第三,VCC的行為與傷害之間有聯繫。 但由於VCC對標誌的疏忽,原告不會受到傷害。 第四,疏忽並不太傷人。 第五,原告在決定在湖中滑雪時有自己的疏忽,因為他沒有經驗,也沒有試圖了解這個湖。 因此,VCC的責任可以減少。 最後,原告的脊椎受傷,導致藥品和其他損失。
Application:
First, VCC has the duty as it was responsible for the lake with the purpose of recreation. It is reasonably foreseeable for VCC to realize someone might be skilling and injury in the lake due to the lack was not always deep. Second, VCC acted below the standard care, while a reasonable person in this circumstance is likely to make more signs to identify the deep area and the shallow area. Third, there was a link between VCC’s action and the injury. But for the VCC’s negligence of the sign, the plaintiff would not get injury. Forth, the negligence is not too remote to the injury. Fifth, the plaintiff has own negligence in deciding to ski in the lake as he was inexperienced and not try to know about the lake. Hence, the liability of VCC can be reduced. Finally, the plaintiff suffered injuries to the spine, which leaded to medicine and other loss.
最後給出結論,布魯克對谷市議會有疏忽的合法權利。
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Brooke has legal rights in negligence against the Valley City Council.