Need help with my writing homework on Law. Write a 250 word paper answering; Law Case Study-B Question A. The tort of negligence as was defined by Judge Alderson in the case of Blyth v Birmingham Wate

Need help with my writing homework on Law. Write a 250 word paper answering;

Law Case Study-B Question A. The tort of negligence as was defined by Judge Alderson in the case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co, 1856 states that it is “the breach of duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do” (Magnus, Martín-Casals & Boom, 2003). Consequently, this definition may be rightly put to imply the neglect of the use of ordinary care or skill towards a person to whom the defendant owes the duty of observing ordinary care and skill by which neglect, the plaintiff has suffered injury to hi person or property.

In the ensuing case of Prof. Robinson, a prima facie case of negligence can be brought, based on the elements of negligence:i. Duty of care owed to the plaintiff by the defendant.ii. A breach of the duty of care.iii. A cause in fact i.e. an actual causal connection between the harm caused to the plaintiff and the conduct of the defendant.iv. A proximate cause related to whether the harm could have been foreseen.v. Damages resulting from the conduct of the defendant.In articulating a case for the plaintiff, I would base on these elements and factor out the following.

First, the defendant, ABC Go-Kart, owes everyone that enters the premise guarantee for their safety especially when using their equipment and cars for racing. In this particular case, the defendant’s employee fails to inspect the brakes which results in the failure of the breaks of Obama. As such an accident occurs and Robinson dies from it. Consequently, the defendant owes the plaintiff, a duty of care since it was expected that by the nature of the races that take place in the area, the waiting area should have been shielded from the tracks. thus, no wheels could fly and ram into those in the waiting area.

Therefore, based on these incidences, I find that the defendant breached the duty of care by failing to exercise reasonable care in ensuring that the wheels of the cars for racing are properly fitted and the braking system is working. Consequently, they failed to show reasonable care in that the waiting area was left open when the same, according to Pennsylvania law, ought to have been covered so people would not get hurt from such incidences. Therefore, a cause in fact may be determined on these two grounds in that had it not been for the defendant’s negligent actions, the injury through death would have not occurred to the plaintiff.

In considering the proximate cause for this incident, it is evident that ABC Go-Kart as the defendant would have foreseen such the scope of such an occurrence and taken adequate responsibility to prevent it. For instance, had they paid the mechanic well, he would have performed his duty accordingly and the brakes of Obama would have not failed. As a result, the plaintiff can seek for damages for such actions of negligence. The death of Professor Robinson in itself is a legal ground for which negligence can be proved hence, damages sought for.

Failure of the defendant to exercise care is not enough but, payment of damages to the plaintiff will be legal (Best & Barnes, 2007).ReferencesBest, A., & Barnes, D. W. (2007). Basic tort law: Cases, statutes, and problems. Austin: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.Magnus, U., Martín-Casals, M., & Boom, W. H. (2003). Unification of tort law: Contributory negligence. New York: Kluwer Law International.