公司法商法

(d) Will a criminal conviction have any bearing on whether or not Tong or Sasha receive compensation for their injuries?
Not directly
Even though their sue for compensation in civil courts, and in the criminal courts, they aims for punishment . A criminal conviction can help Tong and Sasha prove their cases, and it makes clearly fact that Tong and Sasha suffered injury and damage.
(f) Explain what defences are likely to be available to Reckless. Is he likely to be successful?
Defences
Defences against successful actions in negligence can be used to avoid，reduce. or limit liability in the following ways: (a)Avoid-an employee can claim under the law of vicarious liability that it is their employer who is liable for their own negligence. (b)Reduce-The contributory negligence of the claimant result in a reduction in damages of between 10-75% where it can be proved that the claimant had contributed to their injury in some way. In exceptional circumstances damages have been reduced by 10%. (c)Reduce-‘Volenti non fit injuria’that to which you consent) applies when there is a known risk on behalf of the claimant, such as accepting a lift from a drunk driver. In such cases though it must be proved that the claimant knew of, and consented to, such risks. (d)Limit-The Limitation Act 1980 states that claims in tort should be brought to court within six years from the date of negligence.In personal injury claims this has been reduced to three years.
(a) Explain what type of liability Reckless may have in law.
In this case，Reckless has civil and criminal liability.
Civil law: This is the form of private law used by individuals to assert their rights against other individuals, the aim being to provide compensatory remedies not punish them.Cases are usually cited in the form of Brown v Brown. In this case, Reckless severing the Sasha’s leg is civil liability.
Res Ipsa Loquitur Sasha suffered a broken leg and Tong suffered whiplash caused by Reckless` driving.
•Reckless has consumed a substantial amount of alcohol that night, he’s driving is erratic.
(b) Reckless is told that he could be facing prosecution. Explain who would bring such action and where the case would be heard.
•Reckless is told that he could be facing prosecution.
(c) Explain the burden and standard of proof in criminal cases.
Two main categories of criminal offences :
Summary offences: those subject to maximum punishments of six months imprisonment and/or ￡5,000 fine
ห้องสมุดไป่ตู้
(II)The standard and burden of proof that must be discharged; Causation
'but for' (Barnett V Chelsea ) 'novus actus interveniens'
Reckless has consumed a substantial amount of alcohol that night, he’s driving is erratic.
Tong decides to have a night out at a newly opened night-club. On the way to the club his friend Reckless pulls up in a car and offers him a lift to the club. Before Tong gets into the car Reckless tells him that he has consumed a substantial amount of alcohol that night, Tong accepts the offer of a lift anyway. Reckless’ driving is erratic and he knocks a cyclist, Sasha, off his cycle. Sasha was wearing dark clothing and the lights on his bike were not working. Sasha suffered a broken leg and Tong suffered whiplash caused by Reckless` driving.
The breach of duty caused the harm to claimant. In this case, Reckless to prove a clear link between the Tong and Sasha harm caused.Because of Reckless drunk driving,Tong and Sasha suffered injury and damage.
(II)The standard and burden of proof that must be discharged;
Breach of duty of care 'A reasonable person acting reasonably'
（a）Skills and experience （b）Likelihood of injury （c）The degree of risk
Duty of care The neighbour principle （Donoghue V Stevenson )
you owe a duty of care to anybody who it may be reasonably foreseen
will be affected by your negligent acts or omissions'
attend the hearing.
Magistrates Court : In civil cases the magistrate may hear family proceedings in addition to having powers of recovery in relation to council tax and domestic bills.
In civil cases:
Aims : Compensation
Remedies : Damages If not :
wish
out of court
communication
Sasha suffered a broken leg.
Small claims track ：For claims of up to ￡5000，parties need not
(e) If Tong and Sasha sue Reckless explain: (I) Where the case will be heard?
Definition of Tort: A tort is 'a wrongful act against an individual which gives rise to a civil craim'
Indictable offences: those subject to maximum sentences in excess of six months imprisonment and/or ￡5,000 fine.
In criminal case: the prosecution prove the offence of driving with excess alcohol by beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law: This is an aspect of public law seeking to regulate behavior not approved by the State, the aim being to enforce the law, and punish offenders. Crimes are offences committed against the law of the land and cases are usually cited in the form of R v Brown. In this case the, Reckless drunk driving violated the law, so he has criminal liability.
There has been a breach of that duty of care ,being that the defendant has failed to act reasonably. In this case,Reckless clearly know that he will drive a car ,but drinking a lot, which is not careful as a driver.
Sasha suffered a broken leg.
(III) What will have to be proved to the court satisfaction?
In order to successfully claim damages for a tort the claimant must prove on a balance of probabilities three things: Duty of care is owed to the claimant. In this case ,because of the neighbour principle,Reckless owe a duty of care to Tone and Sasha
•Sasha suffered a broken leg. Summary offences--those subject to maximum punishments of six months imprisonment and/or ￡5,000 fine.
Magistrates Court : This court is empowered to try summary offences without a jury, or to commit defendants charged with an indictable offence to the Crown Court.