In this hypothetical situation, one can deduce that there are five potential tort claims which are assault, battery, negligence, and trespass to goods.
Alice, along with her husband, Bob, were driving in the highway behind Connor, a minor learning how to drive with a permit, and his dad, David. Alice notices that brakes of the car have failed and slams into Connor and David’s car. This results in severe damage of both the cars and causes the pair to suffer from a strong jerk. After the unexpected blow, David walks up to Alice’s door and begins to abuse her, stating that he will sue her. He also pokes his finger at the door window and exclaims “You bitch! I was teach my kid how to drive”. Feeling threatened, Bob pulls David back from the door and asks him to keep his cool since it was all an accident. Bob then proceeds to punch David in the face since he thought that he was holding him back. David’s punch injures Bob as he loses his balance as the police is called. It was later found that Alice had failed to take her car for the scheduled maintenance which was one of the reason as to why the brakes did not work. However, the failure of the car brakes was due to something hitting the brake cables during their commute.
The first potential tort claim is battery, where David is the plaintiff and Alice the defendant. In the given situation, Alice rams into David’s car causing him and his son, Connor, to suffer from a blow that results in them suffering from an injury.
The second tort claim is assault, wherein Alice is the plaintiff and David is the defendant. Here, David, upset that his car was slammed into, pokes his finger angrily at the door window thereby leading Alice to believe that was an imminent threat and the apprehension of the use of force.
The third tort is battery where David is the plaintiff and Bob is the defendant. Bob pulls David back from the car door. This leads David to believe that there was direct contact which was hostile and a lack of consent thus satisfying all elements of battery.
The fourth tort is negligence where in David the is plaintiff and Alice is the defendant. Alice’s car was behind on scheduled maintenance and her car breaks were to be replaced. Alice owed a duty of care to Connor and David as she had to ensure that her actions do not cause harm to any person, or property.
The fifth tort which the plaintiff, David can claim from the defendant, Alice is the tort of Interference with goods, more specifically trespass to goods. In this situation, Alice directly rams into David’s car thereby causing damage to their car. There is an interference with the normal functioning of the vehicle as well as the plaintiffs. Moreover, even though the act was unintentional, the fact that there are actual damages is enough to proof the tort of trespass to goods.
The sixth tort claim is assault wherein Alice is the plaintiff and David is the defendant. In the given hypothetical situation, when Alice’s car hits David’s, he walks out of his car and begins to berate her while also threatening to sue her. During the process, he also exclaims “You bitch!” which can lead Alice to believe that David might attack her. This means that there was apprehension of use of force, thus, it can constitute an assault.
ASSAULT
The second potential tort claim is assault where Alice is the claimant and David is the defendant which falls under trespass to a person. The elements of that are required in order to satisfy a claim of assault are (1) an intentional action by the defendant towards the claimant, (2) the apprehension of the use of force towards the claimant, (3) imminent threat experienced by the claimant due to the actions of the defendant.
In the given situation, first, the claimant could argue that the fact that the defendant had been poking his finger at the door window it made her, Alice (claimant), believe that force could have been used. Secondly, the fact that when he was hitting on the window with his finger, he was also abusing her and threatening to sue her. Therefore, it could be interpreted that the defendant had intended to harm the claimant, thus making the claimant believe that there was imminent threat. All of these elements together would constitute the tort of assault.
The defendant, in this case, could argue that there was no imminent threat since he was only poking the car window. Thus, he could not have caused any harm to her since there was a solid structure that was blocking him and the claimant. Secondly, he could also state that he was making sure that his car is not damaged further, i.e. defence of one’s property.
In my opinion, the claim of assault should be allowed as all the elements are satisfied in this case. The claim of the defendant is unreasonable as the damage was already caused to the vehicle, thereby making it redundant to abuse her and hit her car window. This was seen in Paras Ram and Anr. v Rex wherein it was stated that if the apprehension of danger has actually commenced and if one can have recourse to the public authorities before an actual injury is caused to the property or right, he must do so, or else he will lose his right of private defence. Moreover, the defence is only applicable if the use of force is justified only for the defence of the individual or property. In this situation, the action of the defendant was intentional, which was poking the claimant’s car window, there was an apprehension of the use of force, and an imminent threat. The tort was committed when David made an attempt to do harm rather than the harm actually being caused.
NEGLIGENCE
The second potential tort claim is negligence where David is the claimant and Alice is the defendant. In order for a tort to be constituted as negligence, there needs to be (1) a duty of care owed to the claimant by the defendant, (2) a breach of that duty, and (3) non-remote damages caused by that breach of duty.
The claimant in this case could argue that it was the defendant’s duty to ensure that no one in the road is injured. Under normal circumstances, it is the duty of the driver to take reasonable care for the safety of other road users. . According to the neighbour principle, an individual is to avoid acts which s/he can foresee as causing damage to the neighbour, i.e. any person who are in the proximity and are directly affected by the act of the defendant. Hence, to ensure that no one in the proximity of Alice’s car was injured, it was her duty to maintain her car and replace the car breaks.
The defendant would argue that, even though her car breaks were to be replaced, the cause of the accident was not because of the same. Her breaks had been working perfectly until something along the road had hit the cables of the break causing them to fail. Therefore, it was not due to her negligence that her car had slammed into David’s car.
In my opinion, the tort of negligence would fail. This is because the act of Alice’s car slamming into David’s was an Inevitable Accident. While she had judiciously applied the brakes, the system was not working due to the change in its performance after being hit. It was an accident that could not be prevented even if reasonable care was taken by the defendants. In Rintoul v. X-Ray and Radium Industries Ltd., the accident had taken place due to the failure of the vehicle’s brakes. However, in Rintoul v. X-Ray and Radium Industries Ltd., there was no evidence to explain why the breaks had stopped working, even though they were working perfectly before and after the accident. Alice’s car brakes however, stopped working for the aforementioned reason thereby owing it to the probability of something hitting the road. Even though there was negligence on her part with regards to maintaining the car, the actual accident was not due to her failing to replace the brakes but other circumstances. Therefore, since the defendant, in this case Alice, has done nothing unreasonable the tort of negligence has not been committed by her.
DAMAGES
In this hypothetical situation, David (plaintiff) can claim damages from Alice (defendant). Damages refers to the sum of money that the law imposes for some breach of duty or violation of some right. There was a breach of duty on Alice’s part where she failed to maintain her car and replace the brakes. He can claim compensatory damages in this case. They are awarded in respect to the loss incurred by claimant so that s/he can return to the same position as s/he would have been if that tort did not take place . David, in this case, can seek compensatory damages since Alice’s car hit his causing severe damage to the same.
Hence, this paper consists of six potential tort claims, analysis of two tort claims (Assault and Negligence), and an additional section relating to damages.