FACULTY OF SPORTS SCIENCE AND RECREATION
BACHELOR OF SPORTS MANAGEMENT (HONS.)
SRL 451 (SPORTS LAW)
Individual Assignment:
LAW OF TORT
PREPARED BY:
MUHAMMAD ALIF SYAKIR BIN AZMAN
(2024962981) (SR2412A)
Prepared For:
DR ZETI ZURYANI BINTI MOHD ZAKUAN
Submission Date:
24 May 2024
QUESTION
Mrs Lim was driving her new car when it knocked into Mr Moo Tai, a pedestrian, who was
walking across the road. Mr Moo Tai could have easily seen Mrs Lim’s car approaching.
Mrs Lim saw Mr Moo Tai walking across the road but she was too excited over her new
car that she forgot to step on her brakes. Due to the accident, Mr Moon Tai suffer severe
injury. He was hospitalized for 1 month.
Advise Mr Moon Tai as to his rights under the law to sue Mrs Lim for negligence.
(20 marks)
ANSWER
Issue: Whether Mr Moo Tai can sue Mrs Lim of Mrs Lim negligence caused an accident
to Mr Moo Tai or not.
Legal Principle: Sports and Law of Torts (Negligence)
1. The definition of Negligence is a tort committed by a person without an intention to
commit such an act. Next, Negligence occurs when there is failure to give enough
care or attention to someone or something that a person is responsible for. In
addition, Negligence is established when three elements are fulfilled. The elements
of negligence are duty of care, breached duty of care and damage.
2. The first elements is duty of care.
- The definition of duty of care is the duty imposed by the law or legal duty. In
addition, the duty of care is a responsibility of an individual not to harm others
through carelessness.
1
3. E.g. Donoghue v Stephenson (1932).
- In this case, the defendant was a manufacturer of ginger beer had sold ginger
beer to the retailer. The plaintiff went to his friend house and had a ginger beer.
After the first glass, his friend refilled the plaintiff’s glass. Along with the ginger
beer came decomposed remains of a snail. The plaintiff suffered shock and
was severely ill. Court held that the defendant liable.
4. Neighbour’s Principle
- The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law and you must not
injure your neighbour
5. Foreseeability
- Whether it is foreseeable that the defendant’s carelessness could cause
damage to the plaintiff.
6. Proximity
- Whether there is a relationship of proximity between the defendant and the
plaintiff. Also, there must be a connection between the two of them.
7. Fairness
- Whether it would be fair, just and reasonable for the courts to find that the
defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.
8. The second elements of negligence is breach of duty of care.
- The definition of breach of duty of care is doing or omitting an act that causes
damage or injury to the plaintiff. Also, the plaintiff needs to establish that the
defendant owes him or her a duty of care first. Then, the next step is to consider
if the defendant has breached the duty.
2
9. The reasonable man test.
- Measured through the standard of a reasonable man. Breach occurs when the
defendant does something that is perceived to be below the standard of care
required of him.
- Blyth V Birmingham Waterworks Co., It was stated that negligence is the
omission to do something which a reasonable man would do or doing
something which a reasonable man would not do.
10. Eg. Caldwell v Maguire [2001] EWCA Civ 1054
- During a horse race the claimant lost control of his horse and sustained injuries.
It was claimed that the dismount was the result of a risky maneuver made by
two other jockeys and the court determined that a duty had been breached.
11. The last elements of negligence is damage.
- Damage in negligence can be defined as the harm or loss suffered by the
plaintiff as a consequence of the defendant's breach of two issues of causation
and remoteness of damage.
12. Causation
- Causation is when the defendant has caused an injury or damage to the
plaintiff.
13. Remoteness damage
- Remoteness damage is damage that has been foreseeable by a reasonable
man.
3
14. The reasonable foresight test
- E.g. The Wagon Mound :
While refueling another ship the defendant's ship which is the Wagon Mound
carelessly spilled oil into the sea. No attempt was made to clean up the oil and
it soon reached the claimant's wharf. On the wharf, welding was occurring when
sparks ignited debris beneath the wharf which in turn ignited the oil. This
resulted was destroying the wharf and the equipment on it. The damage was
not foreseeable hence the court decided that the defendant was not
responsible for their actions.
Application:
1. Rely on Mrs Lim and Mr Moo Tai case, Mrs Lim was negligence because she
was forgot to step on her brakes which is resulting knocked a pedestrian who
is Mr Moo Tai.
2. Relying on Mrs Lim and Mr Moo Tai case, Mrs. Lim owed a duty of care to Mr.
Moo Tai which is as a driver she must have a responsibility as a road user such
as drive carefully and avoid from harming any pedestrian. So, Mrs Lim owed a
duty of care to Mr Moo Tai.
3. Relying on Mrs Lim and Mr Moo Tai case, Mrs Lim owed a duty of care to other
road user which is Mr Moo Tai. As Mrs Lim forgot to step on her brakes and
caused an accident happened, Mr Moo Tai was severely injured and
hospitalized for 1 month.
4. The neighbour principle rely on Mrs Lim and Mr Moo Tai case is, Mr Moo Tai
and Mrs Lim are both person at the same location and same time. Both of them
have a connection as a neighbour. So, using the neighbour principle Mrs Lim
should not harm hers’ neighbour and caused an injury to Mr Moo Tai.
4
5. Based on Foreseeability of Mrs Lim and Mr Moo Tai case, Mrs Lim are available
and can see Mr Moo Tai walking across the road. However, because of her
excitement of new car she forgot to hit the brake pedal and knocked Mr Moo
Tai and caused and injury to Mr Moo Tai.
6. Proximity on Mrs Lim and Mr Moo Tai case is there is a relationship
of proximity between the Mrs Lim and Mr Moo Tai as both of them was a road
user at the same time. Mrs Lim was a driver and Mr Moo Tai was a pedestrian
during the accident happened.
7. Also there are fairness in Mrs Lim and Mr Moo Tai case. Relying on their case,
courts can find there was fair, just and reasonable for this case. Mrs Lim who
is defendant owed a duty of care to Mr Moo Tai who is plaintiff. Mrs Lim should
have a responsibility when driving as she should driving carefully and not make
any careless mistakes. However Mrs Lim have negligence which is she see Mr
Moo tai and forgot to brakes her car which caused Mr Moo Tai hospitalized for
1 month.
8. Relying on Mrs Lim and Mr Moo Tai case, the breach of duty occurred when
Mrs Lim caused Mr Moo Tai an injury that’s hospitalized Mr Moo Tai for 1
month. As the situation happened, Mrs Lim are foreseeability Mr Moo Tai
walking across the road but still Mrs Lim are negligence and caused an
accident happened. So, Mrs Lim have breached duty of care.
9. Relying on Mrs Lim and Mr Moo Tai case, courts can do a reasonable man test a
road users such as other drivers. The test are to determine whether a person's
behavior in a particular situation can be considered appropriate and acceptable
according to societal norms. For this case, Mrs Lim’s standard of care are low
because she knocked a pedestrian compared to the other driver because of the
other driver are drive carefully and do not breach the duty of care when driving.
5
10. Based on Eg. Caldwell v Maguire [2001] EWCA Civ 1054 case, Rely on Mrs. Lim
and Mr. Moo Tai‘s case, Mrs. Lim breached this legal duty by neglecting which is
she forgot to step the brakes even though she saw Mr. Moo Tai walking crossing
the road.
11. Rely on Mrs Lim and Mr Moo Tai case, Mrs Lim was harmed Mr Moo Tai which is
she forgot to step on her brakes and causing Mr Moo Tai suffering an injury which
was hospitalized Mr Moo Tai for 1 month. Due to this accident, the element of
damage have been establish.
12. Rely on Mrs Lim and Mr Moo Tai case, the causation was happened when Mrs
Lim forgot to step on her brakes and causing Mr Moo Tai suffering an injury and
hospitalized for 1 month.
13. Rely on Mrs Lim and Mr Moo Tai case, the remoteness damage has been
foreseeable by Mrs Lim and she knew if she didn’t steps on her break, she will
cause a damage to Mr Lim.
14. Relying on E.g. the Wagon Mound case, Relying on Mrs. Lim and Mr. Moo Tai‘s
case, Mr. Moo Tai suffered severe injury and he was hospitalized for 1 month. This
damage is caused by Mrs Lim because of Mrs Lim carelessly when driving.
Conclusion:
- In conclusion, Mrs. Lim owed Mr. Moo Tai a duty of care, breached the duty of
care and damaged and all elements of negligence was fulfilled. So, Mr. Moo
Tai can sue for Mrs. Lim for her careless driving.
