Legal evaluation Assignment

Legal evaluation Assignment

The fact that the law is a double-edged sword does not mitigate or provide for lenient actions to be taken in case of acts of omission or commission committed by relatives. The only remedying factor, in this case, is to either apply alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (ADRM) or result in due process of the law. Nevertheless, if it leads to a court process, lodging of a lawsuit in a civil court would apply, where civil litigation would be conducted to prove the innocence of the mother.

I have decided to sue my mother for the injuries caused. The decision of whether to sue or not to sue my mother is dependent on certain variant factors. By dint that she has refused to settle my hospital dues of 4000 dollars, even after been the main perpetrator of the accident creates in me emotional instability. The fact that I’m unable to raise the hospital fees leaves me no choice but to request the same from the court of law. However, if we would settle the dispute through an alternative dispute mechanism where she agrees to pay the hospital fees and help me repair the motorcycle, I don’t find any reason for suing her. Since after all, she is my mother notwithstanding all the events that have transpired.

The suit process will involve my lodging of a claim with a civil court since the whole incident involves a civil matter. Here being the plaintiff will be claiming for damages due to the injuries caused by the accident my mother propagates and of who will be the defendant. The court will then set a hearing date where my mother and I will appear before the jury to argue our case based on the facts and the merits that make up the case generally to arrive at a fair, credible and considered verdict.

I would sue her for negligence. The court would decide her liability on the grounds of duty of care, breach of duty of care, the chain of causation and the harm caused as a result of the negligence as very well laid out in the landmark case of Donoghue vs. Stevenson (1932) decided by Lords Atkins and Buckmaster in the house of Lords. Mrs Donoghue in Paisley, Renfrewshire went to Well meadow Café, and a friend who was with her ordered two beers. The owner of the café brought over a tumbler and poured the ginger beer on it from an opaque brown bottle with the label of, “D. Stevenson, Glen Lane, and Paisley”. However, as Donoghue was drinking the beer, nearly to finish, a decomposed snail also came out of the bottle. Donoghue on seeing that started vomiting and confessed of stomach-ache. She was, however, diagnosed with severe gastroenteritis and shock. The beer was from a company that manufactured both ginger beer and lemonade and Donoghue’s friend contacted the manufacturer.

The jurisprudence invoked was that although there was a contract of sale that existed between her and the seller, the manufacturer was strictly liable. This because they did not observe the “Neighbours principle” that people should take reasonable care not to injure others who cannot foresee an injury that is propagated by their acts or omissions. He concluded by affirming that, “everyone was supposed to take reasonable care as a sane person would in his right state of mind do.”

The chain of causation that led to my mother running over me all is well brought out by this case. Thus the alarming proximate relationship between my injuries and my mother hitting me cannot be denied. This therefore sufficiently makes my mother liable and binds her to pay general damages which include the hospital bill and also special damages of my bicycles repairs.

To a certain extent, it does matter whether I was wearing proper motorcycle boots. However, prima facie the strict liability is on my mother who owes me a duty of care as provided for in the “neighbours’ principle.” This duty of care only extends to the limits of her proving that I also contributed to the occurrence of the accident by not wearing my motorcycle boots. My mother can claim that I contributed to the occurrence of the accident by citing that my negligence of not wearing my boots partially or entirely made the accident happen. However, this can only be ascertained by evaluating facts of the case whether there was an element of boots in the chain of causation and causing the accident. Nevertheless, if this cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then she stands to be strictly liable.

The lawsuit would be successful and attract general and special damages if requested. This will be made possible by the facts as argued above, citing all the relevant provisions of the law either in favour or not favouring the case brought against my mother the defendant.

References

v Stevenson, D. (1932). Appeal Cases, p 562.