Tort law proplem question

[Sonne]

Hi Guys

I'm supposed to write a memo of 500 words on the following proplem question, but I'm completly stuck when it comes to the 3rd possible defendant's liability in this question and who can be sued in the end.
Any help would be appriciated. Thank you so much!

Ron and Ginny, Mr Weasley’s children, are fighting over a magic book in the back of Mr Weasley’s car. Mr Weasley is not very happy as the traffic is bad and he wants to get to the sales before they run out of the new brooms he has seen. Mr Weasley attempts to control them but in doing so doesn’t see Hermione who is crossing the road to get to her father on the other side. Hermione sees Mr Weasley’s car and runs back towards the pavement and hits a cyclist, Harry, who falls off his bike, hitting his head and injuring his arm.

An ambulance arrives and Harry is told by the paramedic, Percy, that his arm is only bruised, that there is no need to go to the hospital and he should rest it for a while when he gets home.

Harry goes home but two days later is feeling ill and goes to the hospital where he is told that he will not be able to work again. He is told this is due to the concussion that he suffered after the accident, which exasperated a rare brain disease that he was susceptible to.

Harry seeks your advice

Here are the ideas that I've come up with sofar. Please help!!

Looking at the first possible defendant Mr Weasley, as the driver of the car he has a duty of care to drive like a reasonable competent driver (Nettleship v Weston) . A driver not paying attention or driving irresponsibly will have breached that duty of care. Looking at the facts Mr Weasley breached his duty of care by being distracted by his children, thus not concentrating on the road and therefore not seeing Hermione when she crossed the road.


Looking at the second possible defendant Hermione, as a pedestrian she has a duty of care to cross the road reasonably i.e. a pedestrian must exercise reasonable care for his or her own safety , but Mr Weasley has a greater duty of care because he is a motorist whereas Hermione is a pedestrian .

Looking at the third possible defendant Percy, as a paramedic he has specialist skills, thus his standard of care is not that of a reasonable person but the standard is not that of the ordinary person but of a person with that special skill . Generally emergency services do not own a duty of care when they are called out , however in the case of Kent v. Griffiths it was held that the ambulance service did own the claimant a duty of care, this is because the ambulance service is only out to protect an individual whereas the other emergency services are protecting the public at large. It should be noted that there is a gap in knowledge because we do not know what was said between our client and Percy i.e what questions were asked, because of the gap of knowledge and the fact that Harry is susceptible to the brain disease it is difficult to establish Percy’s breach of duty of care. Does this make any sence? This is where I get stuck!!!

Are the 1 and 2 defendants jointly liable or should I rather just advice the client to sue the 1st defendant?

[tranquility]

Um...eggshell plaintiff?

Review edit:
What I mean is that your discussion on that portion of the facts is not going to be on duty, but on causation.

[ShyCat]

(1) U.S. law only.
(2) We don't do homework.

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by Sonne

Hi Guys

I'm supposed to write a memo of 500 words on the following proplem question, but I'm completly stuck when it comes to the 3rd possible defendant's liability in this question and who can be sued in the end.
Any help would be appriciated. Thank you so much!

Ron and Ginny, Mr Weasley’s children, are fighting over a magic book in the back of Mr Weasley’s car. Mr Weasley is not very happy as the traffic is bad and he wants to get to the sales before they run out of the new brooms he has seen. Mr Weasley attempts to control them but in doing so doesn’t see Hermione who is crossing the road to get to her father on the other side. Hermione sees Mr Weasley’s car and runs back towards the pavement and hits a cyclist, Harry, who falls off his bike, hitting his head and injuring his arm.

An ambulance arrives and Harry is told by the paramedic, Percy, that his arm is only bruised, that there is no need to go to the hospital and he should rest it for a while when he gets home.

Harry goes home but two days later is feeling ill and goes to the hospital where he is told that he will not be able to work again. He is told this is due to the concussion that he suffered after the accident, which exasperated a rare brain disease that he was susceptible to.

Harry seeks your advice

Here are the ideas that I've come up with sofar. Please help!!

Looking at the first possible defendant Mr Weasley, as the driver of the car he has a duty of care to drive like a reasonable competent driver (Nettleship v Weston) . A driver not paying attention or driving irresponsibly will have breached that duty of care. Looking at the facts Mr Weasley breached his duty of care by being distracted by his children, thus not concentrating on the road and therefore not seeing Hermione when she crossed the road.


Looking at the second possible defendant Hermione, as a pedestrian she has a duty of care to cross the road reasonably i.e. a pedestrian must exercise reasonable care for his or her own safety , but Mr Weasley has a greater duty of care because he is a motorist whereas Hermione is a pedestrian .

Looking at the third possible defendant Percy, as a paramedic he has specialist skills, thus his standard of care is not that of a reasonable person but the standard is not that of the ordinary person but of a person with that special skill . Generally emergency services do not own a duty of care when they are called out , however in the case of Kent v. Griffiths it was held that the ambulance service did own the claimant a duty of care, this is because the ambulance service is only out to protect an individual whereas the other emergency services are protecting the public at large. It should be noted that there is a gap in knowledge because we do not know what was said between our client and Percy i.e what questions were asked, because of the gap of knowledge and the fact that Harry is susceptible to the brain disease it is difficult to establish Percy’s breach of duty of care. Does this make any sence? This is where I get stuck!!!

Are the 1 and 2 defendants jointly liable or should I rather just advice the client to sue the 1st defendant?

**A: what class is this for?