Law Letter

Liam Feeney

0206956

LA250 Assessment

Business Law 1

Jason Campbell

04/04/2004

Mr Alvin Gaxton

Bennies Buses

Managing Directors Office

Dundee

Dear Mr Gaxton:

While looking over the information, which you sent me, I am replying to advise you of the liability that Bennies Buses has in Delict towards Chic Purcell, and Sheila Seitall. This is based on them both of them lodging claims against. Also, I shall give you my opinion on Ben Kerr’s Unfair Dismissal claim, and whether or not it is valid.

a)

The way that the events happened, makes the liability for the accident difficult. The accident happened in the yard due to a spillage of oil. With Chic Purcell getting out of his van to deliver replacement parts, he was unaware of the oil, and proceeded to slip on the oil. This caused for Sheila Seitall, who noticed the accident, to run across the yard to help the injured delivery man. She also slipped and injured herself.

With regards to Law, there are many factors, which can sway the claims. I will now discuss what Delict is, and the sections which are relevant to the claims.

Delict is a civil wrong, which involves a deliberate or negligent breach of a legal duty. In order for there to be a Delict, a duty of care must be owed. The main principle for delictual liability is known as Damnum Injuria Datum. These are the three sections, which must exist when a delict is viable.

• Damnum is the loss which is being sustained by the injured party.

• Injuria is the conduct, which amounts to the legal wrong-Are you under a duty of care to take precautions to ensure that a person acting lawfully comes to no harm.

• Datum is the link between the fault, and the injury. It is necessary to show that the fault was the cause of the injury. This is often referred to as ‘Causation’.

When linking your situation to the law, I found that there was a delict present. The loss was that both Mr Purcell and Mrs Seitall sustained injuries. They lost earnings as a consequence. The link is present because if the oil spill was not there, then this would not have happened.

It is necessary to show that the person, who is to be held liable, is actually owed a duty of care to the pursuer. It was established by Lord Atkin in which circumstances a duty of care is owed. The case of Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 SC (HL) 31.

This case involved