Law assignment 代寫:幾起侵權案件與雇主責任分析

  • 100%原創包過,高質量代寫&免費提供Turnitin報告--24小時客服QQ&微信:273427
  • 幾起侵權案件與雇主責任分析
     
    介紹
     
    在馬修不幸的情況下,至少有三種關系分別圍繞著這三個方面:馬修、他的雇主、司機和因車禍而遭受損失的受害者。本案涉及侵權責任和雇主義務兩種法律關系。本文根據各自獨立的訴訟關系分為三個部分,分別探討了這兩種關系,并分析了每一方訴訟成功的可能性。
     
    第1期
     
    事實
     
    馬修,他的雇主和作為受害者的企業是第一期的三方。事實上,馬修在日常接生工作中與一名汽車司機發生車禍,造成停電,受害者因此受到損害。因此,這些企業現在正在起訴馬修和他的雇主,要求賠償損失。
     
    分析
     
    此問題包含兩個關系。主要關系是企業和馬修的雇主之間,另一個關系是馬修和他的雇主之間。與第三種可能的受害者與馬太的關系相比,把前兩種關系放在討論中更有意義,因為馬太的關系對受害者的成功幾乎沒有什么好處。
     
    在開始討論之前,有必要介紹侵權行為的幾個要點。一般而言,侵權請求權包括被告人的注意義務的存在、被告人違反其職責的行為、索賠人遭受的損失以及行為與損失之間的因果關系(BLAY,2013)。過失被認為是侵權行為的最重要形式。在多諾霍訴史蒂文森案中,阿特金法官首次提出了“過失”的概念。在證明其合理的注意義務存在之前,被告的過失責任將不成立。另一個與過失有關的概念是“鄰里原則”,這一概念長期以來一直存在爭議,即誰應當承擔注意義務,在多大程度上應當認定被告過失。關于擴大適用這一原則的最典型案例,也與馬修的案例有關,應該是“一家內政部訴多塞特游艇公司”。在這種情況下,馬修和他的雇主都對其他可能受到下文所述特殊工作模式影響的人負有照顧責任。
     
    此外,還應引入“合理的人”的概念,這是在布萊思訴伯明翰自來水公司案中設立的。在這種情況下,馬修的工作模式是,雇員必須在大城市繁忙擁擠的地區駕駛車輛運送貨物,雇主有必要分派送貨任務當員工開車時,以最快的速度完成大部分工作任務。對于一個合理的司機來說,在繁忙的街道上追逐送貨速度冠軍應該被視為一種危險行為,因為員工不能很好地集中精力駕駛,這可能在任何時候造成嚴重的交通事故和進一步的交通堵塞或損害。在這種情況下,Matthew作為其雇主的代理人,應對其特殊的工作方式負責,在其日常工作中代表其雇主,而在街道上為運輸業工作的必要性不應被視為辯護(William Norris QC 2009)。
     
    另一個概念是“就業疏忽”(Feliu&Johnson 2002)。在本案中,馬修的雇主本應提醒其雇員在開車時接電話有危險,但在本案中,這種危險的司機被雇主默許,導致了最終事故的發生。盡管在本案中,除了馬修的受傷外,沒有其他傷害,但企業的損失是可以合理預見的。雇主作為一個委托人,只要合同中有明示或默示的規定,只要有雇傭合同,就有義務對其雇員馬修的侵權行為給予受害人賠償。
     
    雖然雇主和受害人之間沒有商業關系,可以算是雇主的辯護,但整個事故都是由雇員履行職責,特別是在日常工作期間造成的。對于業主(作為交付企業)而言,此類事故的結果應是可預見的。一個理智的人會意識到開車時打電話是危險的,這可能會分散司機的注意力。在這種情況下,因果關系必然成立.
    Analysis on Several Cases of Tort and Employer’s Liability
    Introduction
    In this provided case of Matthew’s misfortune, there could be at least 3 relationships which are respectively revolved these parties: Matthew, his employer, the driver, and the victims who suffered losses from the car accident. There are two kinds of legal relationships referred to tort liability and employer’s obligation included in this case. This article is divided into three parts according to each independent relationship and will be discussing the two types of relationships and analyzing the possibilities of success for each party’s litigation. 
    Issue 1
    Fact
    Matthew, his employer and the businesses as victims are three parties in this first issue. The fact should be concluded as that the victims suffered damages because of the electricity cut caused by a car accident which happened between a car driver and Matthew during his routine of delivery work. As a result, the businesses are now suing both Matthew and his employer for the losses. 
    Analysis
    This issue contains two relationships. The main relationship is between the businesses and Matthew’s employer while another one is between Matthew and his employer. Compared with a third possible relation between the victims and Matthew, which will bring little good to the victims for their success, it is more meaningful to take those the former two relations into discussion. 
    Before starting the discussion, it is necessary to introduce several important points of tort. Generally, a claim of tort contains these factors: the existence of the defendant’s duty of care, the defendant’s behavior breaching his duty, the losses suffered by the claimant and the causation between the behavior and the losses (Blay, 2013). Negligence has been considered the most important form of tort behaviors. The concept of “Negligence” was firstly pointed out by the judge Atkin in the case of Donoghue V Stevenson. The defendant’s liability of negligence will not be held until his reasonable duty of care is proved to exist. There is another concept related to the negligence, the “Neighborhood Principle”, which was in disputes for a long time who should bear the duty of care and to what extend the defendant should be determined negligent. The most typical case about the widen application of this principle, which is also related to Matthew’s case, should be the one Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co. In this case, both Matthew and his employer owe the duty of care to other people who may get affected by the special working mode as described hereinafter. 
    Moreover, the concept of “reasonable man” should also be introduced, which was set up in the case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. In this case, Matthew’s working mode is that the employee has to send goods by driving vehicles among busy and crowded districts of a big city, and it is necessary for his employer to dispatch delivery tasks when the employee is driving so that they can fulfill the most work tasks by the fasted speed. To chase for the champion of delivery speed in busy streets should be considered as a dangerous conduct as to a reasonable driver, which could cause serious road accidents and further traffic jams or damages at any time since the employee cannot focus well on his driving. In this case, Matthew, as an agent of his employer who should be liable for its special mode of working, represented his employer during his daily work, and the necessity of working in the streets for delivery industry should not be taken as a defence (William Norris QC 2009).
    There is another concept of “Negligence in Employment” (Feliu & Johnson 2002). The negligence in training in this case was reflected as Matthew’s employer should have remind its employee of the danger to pick up phone calls when driving from time to time, however, in this case, such dangerous driver had been permissive impliedly by the employer, which led to the final accident. Though there was no other injury except Matthew’s in this case, there was reasonably foreseeable losses to the businesses. The employer, as a principal, should undertake the obligation to pay damages to the victims for the tortious conducts of its employee, Matthew in this issue, as long as there exists a employment contract between them, no matter the contract is express or implied. 
    Though there is no commercial relation between the employer and the victims, which could be reckoned as a defense for the employer, the whole accident was caused by its employee performing his duty, especially during the time of daily work. The result of such accident should be foreseeable for the employer, as an enterprise of delivery, of any commercial structure. A reasonable person can realize the significant consequence of that it is dangerous to make phone calls when driving a car, which could probably distract the attention of the driver. In this case, the causal relationship was necessarily established between the victims’ losses and the employer’s working mode. 
    The final point to discuss is the amount of damages that Matthew and his employer would have to pay. Though the fact of tort has been proved to exist, it’s not yet been described in the materials how much the businesses have suffered and what is the amount of their claimed damages. It should be noted that if the claimed amount of damages has been proposed unreasonably, their claims would probably rejected by court according to the causation theory. Similarly, the claimed amount of damages should depend on their causations with the accident in the following issues, which would not be discussed in details in each issue hereinafter. 
    Conclusion
    It’s obvious that the businesses could probably be awarded damages from the employer as long as they can prove the employment relation between Matthew and his employee. However, compared with the damages from the employer, the businesses would not get enough sums from such a singer individual as Matthew.

    在線客服

    售前咨詢
    售后咨詢
    微信號
    Badgeniuscs
    微信