The Law of Torts for Protection the Interests of the Other People Essay

The Law of Torts for Protection the Interests of the Other People - Essay Example The issue in this research is that Mark dug a certain portion of his yard to build a wall around his front garden. During the process, heavy rain disturbed him and he did not bother to cover the exposed area and a heap of rubble falls into the street. Dick is hit by some stones and is injured on his leg. On the other hand, Laura, Dick’s mother suffers a nervous breakdown after seeing Dick’s injuries. Tony who was riding his scooter down the street fell and broke his arm when hit by some rubble from the open pit. Jacque who was on the other side of the road assisted Tony after the accident and she was later infected with a rare form of blood poisoning which is caused by bacteria found in the soil. From the above scenario, it can be observed Dick, Laura, Tony, and Jacque have rights to file a lawsuit against Mark who is liable for the tort of negligence. In order for the plaintiffs in the above-mentioned scenarios to win their cases, they must prove to the courts that Mar k owed them a duty care and that duty of care has been breached. In order to prove the existence of daycare duty, some conditions should prevail as illustrated by the case of Capiro Industries vs. Dickman. These conditions include foreseeability, proximity as well as reasonability. The occupiers also owe a duty care to ensure that all people who enter their premises are not injured even the trespassers. However, duty care does not always exist hence these factors need to be taken into account. Broadly speaking, some situations are foreseeable to any reasonable person before they embark on a particular action. Â  From the above case scenario, it can be noted that Mark was not reason enough to leave the excavated area unprotected. As illustrated in the case of Hackshaw v. Shaw, occupiers have a duty care to all who pass through their places even trespassers. It can also be seen that it was foreseeable that a storm was building and Mark was not likely to complete his job on time. The element of proximity also exists where Mark excavated an area that was close to the road. As such, it is advisable that Dick, Laura, Tony, and Jacque take legal action against Mark since they can prove to the court that Mark’s actions have been negligent and have led to their injuries. Reasonable people usually do not behave the way Mark acted. Â