Tort Law Moot Argument: FINCH v REDFORD (2022)
FINCH v REDFORD (2022)
1. Introduction
May it please the Court, my name is ………………, and I appear as Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Steven Finch, who is the claimant in this case. My client is sufficiently familiar with the facts of the present reclaiming and is committed to continuously seeking justice. This case presents this Supreme Court with a unique opportunity to protect the reclaiming party against careless driving and to uphold its status as the advocator for justice in this country.
The submission that I wish to put to the Court is that the personal injuries legal requirement for injuries resulting from motor accidents exists to protect the Appellant, and hence should not be examined subjectively to disadvantage the claimant. The consideration is well placed within the legally binding timelines and acknowledges that the junior courts failed to consider specific critical issues in establishing that the Respondent (Mrs. Paula Redford) is answerable to the Appellant's current health status.
2. Main Arguments
With my Ladyship's permission, I would like now to begin my submission.
Moot Point/Issue 1: Key case establishing the principle is that the Respondent owes the Appellant a duty of care and, as such, damages for his psychiatric injuries are recoverable. In this personal injury case, the Respondent had a duty to act in a way that did not cause the Appellant to become injured; following the precedent set by the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100.
“Would my Lordship like the facts of the case?” The Appellant's wife and their grandchild (Freya Davies) were waiting for the Appellant on the pavement when the Respondent, who was driving to an appointment, mounted her car on the pavement, fatally hitting Freya Davies. The Appellant was extremely shocked and immediately passed out. The order of events has resulted in the Appellant being diagnosed as suffering from acute depression and agoraphobia. This far, it is factual to submit that the series of events resulting in Freya Davies' partial paralysis and the Appellant's psychiatric injuries emanate from careless driving.
If it pleases your Ladyship, I wish to discuss a case that displays a clear example of a tort law and negligence issue. This case is Scout Association v Barnes [2010] EWCA Civ 1476, found in the LJ2 on page 97.
Would my Lordship like a reminder of the facts of the case? The facts of the case are as follows; the claimant was a 13-year-old boy scout, and his scout group organised a game in which the scouts would runabout within a designated hall facility in the dark, racing to take a block in the middle. Participants that failed to collect a block were subsequently eliminated. During the game, the appellant was injured after chasing a block that a different player had accidentally kicked away. The claimant in the case suffered considerable pain and discomfort following the accident and needed physiotherapy. The claimant launched a case against the Scout Association in the tort of negligence on the part of the scout leader and argued in respect of the accident. The point of concern with the case is that establishing the tort of negligence involves proving that the defendant breached their case duty to the claimant.
However, in the current case, there is no expounding the facts as the case was already extensively expounded at the Court of Appeal. I wish to highlight that the Scout Association v Barnes [2010] EWCA Civ 1476 case is rather significant in my argument. To establish the mentioned breach, the claimants in these two cases are determined to establish the defendant failed to act reasonably within their positions or the standard of care.
Moot Point/Issue 2: The Respondent has already conceded that liability will be established if the Supreme Court holds that a duty of care is owed. This submission is founded on the tort principle that a breach of duty was the proximate cause of the Appellant's injuries, as indicated in the Caparo Industries Plc v. Dickman case.
If it pleases your Ladyship, I wish to discuss another case with a clear example of a tort law and negligence issue. This case is Barrett v Ministry of Defence [1995] 3 All ER 87, found in the LJ2 on page 87. This case shows that one may be liable for a failure to act if it can be established they have assumed responsibility for the appellant.
Would my Lordship like a reminder of the facts of the case? The facts of the case are; a naval officer named Barret went on a bender at a bar on his navy base resulting in him consuming so much alcohol. He passed out in the process. His colleague officers took him to bed and checked on him. However, Barret passed away from choking on his own sick. Barrett's family claimed against the ministry of defence, arguing they were negligent for failing to take adequate care of their kin, Barret. The Court of appeal held that up. The Court further upheld that once the officers intervened, they assumed responsibility for Barrett's welfare and should have supervised him all night and therefore owed him a duty of care.
I wish to highlight further that the Barrett v Ministry of Defence [1995] 3 All ER 87 case is rather significant in my argument. To establish the tort and negligence breach, the claimants in these two cases are determined to establish the defendants failed to act reasonably within their positions to avoid injuries or death in the worst scenarios.
3. Summary
Your Ladyship, on summary of my argument, I wish to clarify that upon consideration of the case facts placed before you, the Respondent has a case to answer. By suffering psychological injuries, the costs associated with the Appellant's psychiatric treatment and rehabilitation will constitute a severe financial burden that Mr. Finch may be unable to cater to, based on various issues, including age. The accident resulted from the Respondent's negligence; therefore, the Appellant is determined to obtain compensation because of the clearly and effectively demonstrated tort issues in this case.
Something to add: I wish to bring your attention back to Scout Association v Barnes [2010] EWCA Civ 1476 case and, more importantly, focus on the words of LJ on page 97. My learned friend's client, Mrs. Paula Redford, failed to act within her ability, resulting in Mr. Finch's current health predicaments. I respectfully submit that the Court rejects the decision of the Court of Appeal indicating that Mr. Finch could not claim for his psychiatric injury and did not award damages to my client. I humbly request that this honorable Court rules to award whatever is applicable and that would be the fair and just thing to do.
Unless your Ladyship has any further questions; I have completed my submission.
Bibliography
Abhyuday. "Donoghue vs Stevenson." Jus Corpus LJ 2 (2021): 97.
Satyan, Kanika. "Case Analysis: Caparo Industries Plc v. Dickman." Dickman (July 5, 2015)
(2015).
v Hancock, Carrick. "Table of Cases ix."
v Stevenson, Donoghue. "UKHL 100." Lords' Journals, May 26, no. 1932 (1932): 31-08.
