Essay: Tort law problem scenario (road accident)

Problem question
This report will explore potential claims that can arise after road accident, as well as any arguable defences that can come up. The incident involves Paul, who was cycling home without a cycle helmet, Geoff who was driving the same way but was distracted as he was changing the CD, and Beth who was speeding and was partially on the wrong side of the road. When Geoff looked up, he saw Beth’s car and swerved in order to avoid collision. As Geoff swerved to the left sharply, he hit Paul, knocking him off his bike, causing him to fall heavily, cutting open his head and injuring his collar bone. Geoff did not suffer any injuries or damages. After few minutes, Paul, not realising that he broke his collar bone, got back on his bike which has not been seriously damaged and continued his journey. When he tried to apply his brakes at a junction a mile down the road, the pain in his shoulder was so intense that he didn’t manage to stop his bike, causing him to swerve to avoid over-shooting the junction, which caused him to collide with a post box, badly injuring his leg as a result.
Every road user has a duty of care to other users, and by looking at the fact of the accident, it can be seen that there are three potential claims that can arise. Paul v Geoff, Paul v Beth, and Geoff v Beth. However, there are many facts that can cause claims to be thrown out.
Paul v Geoff
Paul can sue Geoff for his injuries and damages. As Geoff was a road user, and had duty of care towards others, including Paul, it was his responsibility not only to avoid colliding with Beth, but also to avoid hitting Paul. In Donoghue v Stevenson, Lord Atkins established the neighbour principle, stating that a person owns a duty of care to anyone they could foresee might be affected by their actions . Geoff can be sued for negligence, as he neglected Paul, as a road user when he hit him, causing injuries and damage to his bike. However, as the injuries were not declared after Geoff hit Paul, Geoff could argue that the injuries that Paul sustained, was not his fault and the injuries occurred when Paul collided with the post box on the side of the road. As Paul has no proof of the injuries before and after any of the incidents, the injuries and damages could be dismissed from the claim, meaning that there are no proven damages, which means that the case could be thrown out as Paul can only claim for his losses, including injuries and property damages. Another defence could be that Geoff is not responsible for the injuries, as Paul wasn’t wearing a cycling helmet. However, as in the case of Capps v Miller, it was proven that the claimant didn’t have anything to do with the injuries, as wearing the helmet only decreased the injuries by 15% at most , meaning that this defence would be invalid. This claim could possibly arise, as Geoff, who was driving, and not paying attention to the road, putting other road users at risk. There are three main legal issues that must be met when looking at a negligence claim. First is the damage or loss. In this case, Paul has suffered injuries and his bike was damaged. Secondly, was there a duty of care? In this case, yes, Geoff had a duty of care to other road users, and Paul was a road user, who was neglected by Geoff. Lastly, has the duty of care been breached? In this scenario it has been, Geoff lost focus of the road when he decided to focus on the change of the CD. As these three legal issues are satisfied, Paul can raise a negligence claim against Geoff.
Paul v Beth
Paul can also raise a claim against Beth as she was the reason why Geoff swerved and hit him. As a road user, Beth had a duty of care not only for Geoff, but Paul as well, and by speeding, she not only put herself in danger but caused Geoff to injure Paul. As in Stovin v Wise case, Beth could be held accountable for the incident between Paul and Geoff, however, she didn’t cause damage or injury to Geoff, therefore she can’t be sued. Beth could also argue that it was Geoff’s fault as he wasn’t paying attention to the road, and she isn’t the one to be sued for Paul’s losses, damages and injuries. Based on these facts, there wouldn’t be a claim if Paul tried to sue Beth, as there weren’t any damages that she caused to him directly. Therefore, the is no possible claim between Paul and Beth. There are three main legal issues that must be met when looking at a negligence claim. First, has the claimant suffered any damage or loss? In this case yes, but Beth wasn’t the direct cause of it. Secondly, is there a duty of care? In this case yes, Beth, as a road user has duty of care towards other road users and Paul was a road user. Lastly, has the duty of care been breached? In this case, yes, as Beth was driving recklessly, but she has not caused damage to Paul directly. As not all of the legal issues are satisfied, Paul cannot sue Beth, therefore there is no claim.
Geoff v Beth
Another claim that could arise is between Geoff and Beth. As Beth is the reason why Geoff hit Paul, he can sue Beth, so he doesn’t have to pay for the injuries that he caused because it wasn’t entirely his fault. However, as in Perl v Camden LBC , it was Geoff who could’ve avoided hitting Paul if he paid attention to the road. Beth could argue that if Geoff wasn’t distracted by the CD, he would have acknowledged her earlier, meaning he would have not had to swerve sharply, preventing not only collision with Beth but also Paul. Therefore, by looking at these facts and the defence argument, it would be likely that this claim would not be successful. There are three main legal issues that must be met when looking at a negligence claim. Firstly, has the claimant suffered any damage or loss? In this case, no, there was no damage or loss that Geoff suffered. Secondly, is there a duty of care? In this case yes, as Beth was a road user, she had duty of care towards Geoff. And lastly, has the duty of care been breached? In this case, yes, the duty of care has been breached as Beth was driving recklessly and she was the reason that Geoff collided with Paul, however, as not all three legal issues, with the suffer of damage or loss has been met, there cannot be a claim, unless Geoff proves that he has suffered loss due to Beth’s actions.
In conclusion, by looking at the three different potential claims and the defence arguments that can arise, it can be seen that only one out of the three claims could actually be carried out as there is a requirement to prove loss, injury or damage in order for the claim to be able to be proceeded and only Paul can prove the damages that occurred when he was hit by Geoff. It can also be seen that Geoff is the one to be blamed for Paul’s injuries as he wasn’t paying attention to the road, meaning that as a road user, who has duty of care to other road users, Geoff put himself and others in danger due to his actions. Beth can’t be sued by Paul or Geoff as she did not cause direct damage to any of the potential claimants. Therefore, there is only one of the potential claims that can arise after the road traffic accident between Paul and Geoff, as only the Paul v Geoff case has met all of the three legal issues that need to be met when looking at a negligence claim.