Question 1 a Sydney Tramway Passenger Was Injured in Collision with Another Tram, Which Occurred After the Driver Collapsed at the Controls. the Plaintiff Argued That the Collision Could Have Been Avoided If the Tramway
TRIMESTER 2, 2012
DUE DATE: - MONDAY 24ST SEPTEMBER 2012
SUBMITTED BY: - ANUP SINGH RAIMAJHI (WMT2060)
A Sydney tramway passenger was injured in collision with another tram, which occurred after the driver collapsed at the controls. The plaintiff argued that the collision could have been avoided if the tramway authority had fitted the tram with system known as ‘dead man’s handle’, a system in use on Sydney’s trains. This would have stopped the tram and avoided the accident. The device had been rejected by the tramway authorities because it was felt that it could cause drivers to become tired, irritated and …show more content…
Jonas was employed by rapid couriers as courier. His father was employed at the same company and worked with his son. One day while making a delivery, the son lost sight of his father, who was directing him, and accidentally ran over him. Discuss whether the father would successfully sue his employer.
Issue: Will father succeed in suing his employer?
Employer or vicarious liability:
An employer is vicariously liable for the actions of its negligent employees if it can be shown that the conduct of the employee that caused the injury to the plaintiff arose out of the course of employment. For an employer to minimise risk, as well as for occupational health and safety reasons, it is important that adequate risk management controls be in place. Vicarious liability is strict liability (Andy Gibson, Douglas Fraser, Business Law 5th edition, Pearson 2011 page No.215).This is one of the categories of negligence.
According to employer or vicarious liability when an employee get injured by another employee during a period of employment their employer is liable for that kind of injury hence in the above case Rapid courier is liable for the injury which Jona father has to suffer even though it was negligence of his son Jona. Being a driver Jona had owed a duty of care to exercise his skills as driver with due care and competence and he owed