Date: November 5, 2014 Michaela Atkinson A00374587
This case has a lot going on, and is a negligence case. It was winter season and Richard was driving his car and his girlfriend Sally was with him as well. They got into a car accident, for numerous of reason. That will be mention later. Richard’s car had one headlight out, and Sally knew and agreed to go with him still.
The steps you must go through to have a successful negligence case are as the following 1) Duty of care, you owe a duty to someone or people to not injure them, ex: Richard is driving Sally, he owes her a duty to not crash the car, to drive safe. 2) Standard of care, have you taken the steps to make sure they don’t get injured? Did you tell them all they needed to know? Ex: Richard didn’t have winter tires, and didn’t tell sally. That would be breaching the standard of care. 3) Causation, was injury directly related to the defendant. Ex: Richard crashed the car, and sally got hurt. So Richard was the cause of Sally injuries. All of these will be done by a reasonable person test. Would reasonable person do that, or think that.
Sally was seriously injured and plans to take action, to receive the damages she deserved. She will be bringing Richard and the Ministry of Transportations to court. She is seeking damages for $2 million for her injuries
Richard is going to bring the Ministry of Transportation to court as well. Because he feels they are the reason for the accident and he will need his car fixed and to pay sally for whatever she wins.
The Ministry of Transportation will have to get a lot evidence against Sally and Richard. Because it’s not all their fault. They have a lot of road to cover and short time. The patrol truck was being repaired, so that put a dent in their work schedule. But the Patrol Supervisor made it work, by driving with the sander
Richard had a duty of care to not crash the car, and to keep Sally safe. He should have had his car up to date for the weather, which he didn’t. He should have told sally that he did not have winter tires on his car. That might have made her changed her mind, because of the weather that day. I don’t know that to think about the cat, which could have been because of the headlight being out. Sally did get injured because of Richards driving and his car not being up to date for the weather. I believe the injury could have been foreseeable, with Richard not having good tires on his car. And it raining and the temperature dropping. And reasonable person would have seen this. Any reasonable person would know that bridges freezes before land.
The Ministry of Transportation had a duty of care to make sure all the roads were safe to drive on. To make sure that all bridges or areas had their signs. The temperature dropped with rain on the roads. So they should have checked the roads later on. They should have checked the bridge that has caused a few accidents, which was the one they crashed on, and made sure it safe for people to drive on.
Richards side of the argument.He is going to use contributory negligence against Sally. Because she voluntary drove with him after knowing there could be injury because of the headlight being out. Which won’t look to good on…