THE LAW OF TORT

Law of Tort Kazim Rizvi Vicarious liability, professional negligence and contributory negligence are the two key factors that have been discussed in the issues presented here. In both the cases, Simon takes up action in order to come to a conclusion as to how he can indeed seek compensation and get remitted for the damages faced by him in the following civil cases.
Keywords: liability, negligence.
Issue 1
Simon can take up action against his Company Doctor under the rule of vicarious liability. The doctor is liable for professional negligence, and should award damages to Simon for the loss suffered by him after listening to his advice.
Simon had a dizzy neck after his car accident and had gone to see the doctor who diagnosed him of whiplash. After hearing that he has a vital presentation to present before the final of the programme, he advised Simon to return to the gym and work out through the pain. This was a wrong advice on the part of the Company doctor. After listening to his advice, he worked through the pain, and as a consequence, Simon passed out during the presentation and was taken to hospital where he was diagnosed with trapped nerves in his neck and as a consequence, was unable to appear in the finale.
Applying the rule of law laid down in the Boman Case, the Company doctor is liable for Simon passing out in the presentation and the subsequent diagnosis in the hospital. Simon would not have gone and worked out if he was not advised by his doctor to do so.
Therefore, applying the tort of professional negligence, we come to the conclusion that the Company doctor is liable for the injuries which happened subsequent to training after getting diagnosed of whiplash. Looking at the remedy available to Simon, the doctor is liable to pay for the damages which occurred after he worked out at the gym, which includes the cost of treatment for getting diagnosed at the hospital, but not the losses incurred due the failure of Simon to attend the finale.These costs must be paid by the doctor to Simon as damages for the tort he committed,. He was negligent in his services and deserves to pay a price for such inefficient and nonprofessional advice.
Issue 2
In the second issue, the case is whether Simon has a defence against the claim of the pedestrian for the damage to her laptop, her loss of book and her illness. The answer to this problem is yes Simon does have absolute defence against the claim of the pedestrian. The pedestrian was not remotely anywhere close to Simon’s responsibility of duty of care while the accident occurred. Simon does not owe her any duty of care in the first place, and subsequent to this, he was not completely negligent in his driving, but there was contributory negligence from the guy who hit him from behind and the pedestrian himself.
Contributory negligence says that if a person who is injured due to the negligent act of another, himself contributes to such a negligent act, and fails to grab the opportunity to avoid injury arising out of such negligence, then he is liable for contributory negligence.
Applying the law to the facts, we see that the pedestrian was busy listening to the music on his iPod and failed to spot Simon coming in the opposite direction. Under normal circumstances a pedestrian would have moved over, but this one failed to do that. On top of this, Simon got hit by a car from behind, and he himself faced losses due to the negligence of the pedestrian.
Therefore, we can conclude that Simon is not liable for the injury caused to the pedestrian, which in fact and law was caused by his own fault.
Work Cited
1. Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 532
2. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 583