Ome Alibo

Business Law
Law of Tort
Law of tort is a civil wrong recognized by the law as a ground for a lawsuit if the
wrong is a result of an injury or harm to the plaintiff. This is a case where Steve lost his
balance while trying to climb a step to get on a Bus and grabbed his friend, the Plaintiff and
caused the plaintiff to fall and broe his elbow. The plaintiff tried to recover damages from
the bus company there was a hole on the first step of the bus which was getting bigger and
the bus company didn!t bother inspecting. "owever, for the plaintiff to claim damages
from the defendant #bus company$, he has to prove four things, namely% that the defendant
owed a duty of care to him, defendant breached that duty of care, that injury e&ist because
of the breach, and the injury would not have occurred but for the behaviour of the
defendant.
'n our case there is a duty of care because the law states that ()ach of us owes a
duty of care to our neighbours not to cause them injury by our negligent acts and
omissions.* To clarify this more, the law went on further to describe who neighbours
would be, and it includes anyone who could be injured by actions directly performed by
you. The bus company definitely owed a duty of care to the plaintiff because it!s a public
bus that every one uses, and the defendant owed a duty to any invitee.
"ere the defendant failed to do what a reasonable person would have done by not
repairing the hole which means the bus company acted negligently. This is mainly because
the incident was foreseeable by the defendant and when holes lie that are left unattended
someone is bound to get injured as a result of it. This case is absolutely res ipsa lo+uitur.
The third case to prove in order for this case to go on is, the plaintiff has to prove
that he was injured because of that breach of duty of care. The plaintiff definitely suffered
a harm by braing his elbow. This proves that he was injured.
The final thing that the plaintiff has to prove is that the injury wouldn!t have
occurred but for the negligence of the bus company. This is some times called (the but for
test*. ,hich means but for the negligence of the bus company would the plaintiff brae his
hand- ' don!t thin so. These reasons enough are beyond reasonable doubt that the bus
company was owed a duty of care and they broe it which injured the plaintiff which could
not have happened but for their negligence.
"owever, the bus company will not let their money go without fighting it. ,hat
they have to prove in the court of law is that there was a volenti non fit injuria #e.g.where
the plaintiff taes a ris voluntary that will harm him$, or contributory negligence# e.g.
where the plaintiff contribute to his misfortune$. .rom the loo of the case, all of these
claims will fail. "owever, the bus company could claim there was a novus actus
interveniens which means that the chain of causation has been broen. The defendant could
claim that Steve cuts their liability and is therefore responsible for the negligence since he
was the one that grabed the plaintiff and made him fall. "owever, it would be very difficult
for the court to approve this because it is foreseeable that a friend would reach out to
another friend or any other person or object while falling. This case is a little similar to
/onoghue 0 Stevenson #1234$ because they both have 3rd party involvement.