Torts law problem Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Torts law occupation - Essay ExampleBased on this certificate, Rhett purchased the land. Later on when Rhett submitted his plans for construction of a residential subdivision, the Council rejected the proposal, on account of flood risk. Due to the refusal, and no other recourse left with Rhett, he had to cheat his land to a local farmer at a substantial loss. Now from the facts above, it is quite nett that, there was injustice meted out to Rhett. Now, the problem that Rhett is facing has a solution in justice of Torts. law of nature of Torts is the field of law which deals civil harms that may be flummoxd to a person. The concept of negligence is integral to the Law of Torts. The definition of negligence under tort law states that, the breach of a legal debt instrument to adopt care, resulting in damage to the claimant which was not desired by the defendant L.B. Curzon, Dictionary of Law. Another popular definition states that, Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of man affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Per Alderson B., Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856). From Lord Curzons definition, we understand that there are three important aspects to prove negligence, one being legal craft to take care, breach of duty of care and the third one being damages. We will first understand the three ingredients of negligence, and then go on to observe whether the problem at lot actually amounts to negligence, and if so, what the recourse that Rhett has is in this given scenario. Now the duty of care essentially means that, all(prenominal) person owes a duty not to harm their neighbour, and clean foresee, whether there action may cause to the person. This principle was laid down in the landmark judgement of Donahue v Stevenson. Further in Capro v. Dickman, their primordial components of Duty of Care were laid down. The judgement verbalize that Harm moldiness be (1) reasonably predictable (2) there must be a relationship of proximity between the plaintiff and defendant and (3) it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability. Now as goes for the first component, we have to determine whether the Council clerk could reasonably foresee the harm he was about to cause Rhett. In this scenario, it can be reasonably assumed that the clerk knew that the whole and sole responsibility of running the back build check on the verbalize property was on him. He was also aware that, if there was any irregularity in the records, it was his duty to point out the Scarlette. Failure to do so, would result in great harm to the buyer of the land, as the buyer was solely depending upon the background check of the Council. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that, the clerk was in a pose to ascertain the kind of harm he would cause if he did not take the proper move to give the proper background check on the aforesaid land. So we are sure, that the first ground of Duty of Care exists. Moving on to the second component, i.e. the relationship of proximity between the plaintiff and the defendant. There was a definite relationship between Rhett and the Council clerk. Rhett had approached the Council clerk, to provide him with the background check on the said land. Therefore, Rhett was expecting the clerk to carry out his duties rightfully and perform the check for him. It was the clerk