《公司法商法ppt课件.ppt》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《公司法商法ppt课件.ppt（13页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、Corporate and Business Law,Tong decides to have a night out at a newly opened night-club. On the way to the club his friend Reckless pulls up in a car and offers him a lift to the club. Before Tong gets into the car Reckless tells him that he has consumed a substantial amount of alcohol that night,
2、Tong accepts the offer of a lift anyway.Reckless driving is erratic and he knocks a cyclist, Sasha, off his cycle. Sasha was wearing dark clothing and the lights on his bike werenot working. Sasha suffered a broken leg and Tong suffered whiplash caused by Reckless driving.,(a) Explain what type of l
3、iability Reckless may have in law.,In this case，Reckless has civil and criminal liability. Civil law: This is the form of private law used by individuals to assert their rights against other individuals, the aim being to provide compensatory remedies not punish them.Cases are usually cited in the fo
4、rm of Brown v Brown. In this case, Reckless severing the Sashas leg is civil liability. Criminal law: This is an aspect of public law seeking to regulate behavior not approved by the State, the aim being to enforce the law, and punish offenders. Crimes are offences committed against the law of the l
5、and and cases are usually cited in the form of R v Brown. In this case the, Reckless drunk driving violated the law,so he has criminal liability.,Reckless is told that he could be facing prosecution.,Sasha suffered a broken leg.,Summary offences-those subject to maximum punishments of six months imp
6、risonment and/or 5,000 fine.,Magistrates Court : This court is empowered to try summary offences without a jury, or to commit defendants charged with an indictable offence to the Crown Court.,(b) Reckless is told that he could be facing prosecution.,Explain who would bring such action and where the
7、case would be heard.,(c) Explain the burden and standard of proof in criminal,cases.,Two main categories of criminal offences : Summary offences: those subject to maximum punishments of six months imprisonment and/or 5,000 fineIndictable offences: those subject to maximum sentences in excess of six
8、months imprisonment and/or 5,000 fine.In criminal case: the prosecution prove the offence of driving with excess alcohol by beyond reasonable doubt.,(d) Will a criminal conviction have any bearing on whether or not Tong or Sasha receive compensation for their injuries?,Not directlyEven though their
9、sue for compensation in civil courts, and in the criminal courts, they aims for punishment . A criminal conviction can help Tong and Sasha prove their cases, and it makes clearly fact that Tong and Sasha suffered injury and damage.,Duty of care The neighbour principle （Donoghue V Stevenson )you owe
10、a duty of care to anybody who it may be reasonably foreseen will be affected by your negligent acts or omissionsIn civil cases:Aims : CompensationRemedies : Damages,wish,communication,out of court,Magistrates Court : In civil cases the magistrate mayhear family proceedings in addition to having powe
11、rs of recovery in relation to council tax and domestic bills.,(e) If Tong and Sasha sue Reckless explain: (I) Where the case will be heard?,If not :Sasha suffered a broken leg.Small claims track ：For claims of up to 5000，parties need not attend the hearing.,Definition of Tort: A tort is a wrongful a
12、ct against an individual which gives rise to a civil craim,Breach of duty of careA reasonable person acting reasonably（a）Skills and experience（b）Likelihood of injury（c）The degree of riskRes Ipsa LoquiturSasha suffered a broken leg and Tong suffered whiplash caused by Reckless driving.Reckless has co
13、nsumed a substantial amount of alcohol that night, hes driving is erratic.,(II)The standard and burden of proof that must be discharged;,Causation but for (Barnett V Chelsea )novus actus interveniensReckless has consumed a substantial amount of alcohol that night, hes driving is erratic. Sasha suffe
14、red a broken leg.,(II)The standard and burden of proof that must be discharged;,(III) What will have to be proved to the court satisfaction?,In order to successfully claim damages for a tort the claimant must prove on a balance of probabilities three things:Duty of care is owed to the claimant.In th
15、is case ,because of the neighbour principle,Reckless owe a duty of care to Tone and SashaThere has been a breach of that duty of care ,being that the defendant has failed to act reasonably. In this case,Reckless clearly know that he will drive a car ,but drinking a lot, which is not careful as a dri
16、ver.The breach of duty caused the harm to claimant. In this case, Reckless to prove a clear link betweenthe Tong and Sasha harm caused.Because of Reckless drunk driving,Tong and Sasha suffered injury and damage.,(f) Explain what defences are likely to be available to Reckless. Is he likely to be suc
17、cessful?,DefencesDefences against successful actions in negligence can be used to avoid，reduce. or limit liability in the following ways:(a)Avoid-an employee can claim under the law of vicarious liability that it is their employer who is liable for their own negligence.(b)Reduce-The contributory neg
18、ligence of the claimant result in a reduction in damages of between 10-75% where it can be proved that the claimant had contributed to their injury in some way. In exceptional circumstances damages have been reduced by 10%.(c)Reduce-Volenti non fit injuriathat to which you consent) applies when ther
19、e is a known risk on behalf of the claimant, such as accepting a lift from a drunk driver. In such cases though it must be proved that the claimant knew of, and consented to, such risks.(d)Limit-The Limitation Act 1980 states that claims in tort should be brought to court within six years from the d
20、ate of negligence.In personal injury claims this has been reduced to three years.,(f) Explain what defences are likely to be available to Reckless. Is he likely to be successful?,(1) Contributory negligenceThe contributory negligence of the claimant result in a reduction in damages of between 10-75%
21、 where it can be proved that the claimant had contributed to their injury in some way. In exceptional circumstances damages have been reduced by 10%.In this case, Sasha was wearing dark clothing and the lights on his bike were not working so that Reckless could not see clearly in the night, so Sasha
22、 has contributory negligence。So, Recklesss defences will be successful.(2) Volenti non fit injuriaVolenti non fit injuriathat to which you consent) applies when there is a known risk on behalf of the claimant, such as accepting a lift from a drunk driver. In such cases though it must be proved that the claimant knew of, and consented to, such risks.In this case, Tong already know the fact that Reckless drink driving, but consented such a risk. Because of Volenti non fit injuria, So, Recklesss defences will be successful.,Thank you！,
