2016年ACCA考试《公司法与商法》冲刺题

2016年ACCA考试《公司法与商法》冲刺题 <br /> Question: <br /> <br />In relation to the TORT OF NEGLIGENCE, explain: <br /> <br />(a)the standard of care owed by one person to another; <br /> <br />(b)remoteness of damage. <br /> <br />Answer: <br /> <br />(a)The law does not require unreasonable steps to be taken to avoid breaching a duty of care. In legal terms, a breach of duty of care occurs if the defendant fails: <br /> <br />&#039;&hellip;&hellip; to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do; or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.&#039; (Blyth v BirminghamWaterworks Co (1856)) <br /> <br />Thus the fact that the defendant has acted less skilfully than the reasonable person would expect will usually result in a breach being established. This is the case even where the defendant is inexperienced in their particular trade or activity. For example, a learner driver must drive in the manner of a driver of skill, experience and care (Nettleship v Weston (1971)). However, the standard of care expected from a child may be lower than that of an adult (Mullin v Richards (1998)). <br /> <br />Clearly the degree, or standard, of care to be exercised by such a reasonable person will vary depending on circumstances, but the following factors will be taken into consideration in determining the issue: <br /> <br />(i)The seriousness of the risk <br /> <br />The degree of care must be balanced against the degree of risk involved if the defendant fails in their duty. It follows, therefore, that the greater the risk of injury or the more likely it is to occur, the more the defendant will have to do to fulfil their duty. The degree of care to be exercised by the defendant may be increased if the claimant is very young, old or less able bodied in some way. The rule is th <br /> <br />at &#039;you must take your victim as you find him&#039; (this is known as the egg-shell skull rule). <br /> <br />In Haley v London Electricity Board (1965) the defendants, in order to carry out repairs, had made a hole in the pavement. The precautions taken by the Electricity Board were sufficient to safeguard a sighted person, but Haley, who was blind, fell into the hole, striking his head on the pavement, and became deaf as a consequence. It was held that the Electricity Board was in breach of its duty of care to pedestrians. It had failed to ensure that the excavation was safe for all pedestrians, not just sighted persons. It was clearly not reasonably safe for blind persons, yet it was foreseeable that they might use the pavement. <br /> <br />The degree of risk has to be balanced against the social utility and importance of the defendant&#039;s activity. For example, in Watt v Hertfordshire CC (1954), the injury sustained by the plaintiff, a fireman, whilst getting to an emergency situation, was not accepted as being the result of a breach of duty of care as, in the circumstances, time was not available to t...