Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Create a 4 page essay paper that discusses Law in Practice: Memorandum.In the police repost the defendant stated that the traffic on his right side was stationary, he looked on the left and the turned
Create a 4 page essay paper that discusses Law in Practice: Memorandum.
In the police repost the defendant stated that the traffic on his right side was stationary, he looked on the left and the turned on the right failing to notice Ms Feran till it was too late. He was wearing a seat belt and did not use any mobile devises ect.
Under the Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines the maximum penalty for careless driving is a level 5 fine and between 3 and 9 penalty points must be endorsed on the drivers licence.
Alternatively a disqualification can be imposed if this is deemed to be necessary, either for a fixed period of time and/ or until a driving test has been passed.
Consideration should also be give to s38(7) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 with regard to whether the standard of driving of the accused shows a failure to observe a provision of the Highway Code. This might be used as evidence of careless driving in the situation listed.
The specific facts requiring consideration are whether the driving standards of the defendant fell below the standard of a competent driver. It should be noted that at the time of the accident the plaintiff was overtaking slow moving traffic. The defendant had used a gap in the traffic queue to exit from the side road in order to perform a right hand turn. Without checking for the possibility of overtaking motorcycles the defendant performed the manoeuvre thereby connecting with the plaintiff on the motorcycle causing her to sustain injuries as a result of the accident.
2.1 The plaintiff’s claim will be based in negligence. The plaintiff will assert that the defendant owed her a duty of care to drive with due diligence. In assessing liability for the accident the courts will consider
2.2 In Davis v Schrogin CA (Civ Div) 27 June 2006 the court found that the defendant had owed the plaintiff a duty of care to ensure that he checked for traffic, including motorcycles , before undertaking the manoevre that caused the accident.
2.3
