Possible Claims and Remedies

Meredith her eyesight as a result of the actions of Paddy, and employee of Queen Victoria Hotel. In accordance with Donoghue v Stevenson, Meredith has a claim against Paddy and his employer who will be vicariously liable upon establishing four conditions. First, she can establish that the Hotel owed her duty of care as customer. Second, she will prove the above duty was breached by the Hotel when their employee, Paddy acted negligently thus causing her injury. Third, she will need to show that the breach of duty caused damage, and finally that the damage was not too remote. Having established the above conditions, she can sue Paddy and the hotel for damages.

Sigmund developed post-traumatic stress disorder after witnessing the incident and she could claim negligent infliction of emotional stress or intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, Sigmund must prove that the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly, such conduct was extreme and outrageous, it is the cause of the distress and he has suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the Hotel’s conduct through Paddy. Being Meredith’s fiancé he is closely related and can thus claim. Wherefore, he can bring an action for general damages.

Rachel broke her arm and dislocated her shoulder after witnessing the incident. To claim for damages for her injury, she must pass the test in Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman. In essence, she has to establish that it is fair just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of care on the hotel. Additionally, it must be shown that the damage is not remote and it was one which was reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances. Taking into account the fact that she was drunk, element of contributory negligence will also kick in in her claim for damages if she chooses to sue.

Jane lost money in an investment after receiving advice from Josh. She can claim under the tort of negligent misrepresentation or negligent misstatement as provided in Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd. She will thus argue that Josh gave her an

[1932] AC 562
Luntz, Harold, et al. Torts: cases and commentary. (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2017)
[1990] 2 AC 605 House of Lords
The Wagon Mound no 1 [1961] AC 388
[1964] AC 465

advice which he had no reason to believe to be true or the statement made is considered to be negligent. As an accountant, Josh’s advice could be taken to have been given in the course of his work hence it amounts to professional negligence for which Jane can bring an action for damages. However, she may not succeed in a claim for pure economic loss as established in Hedley case.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to Personal Injury Claim Process and Solicitor Transfer.