Life Co is a company that undertakes contracts on

the maintenance of roads. In the process of working on one of their projects, they had to start

working earlier though it was impossible for them to have road signs and warnings. To cater for

this, they employed Ali to wave flats as warning signs to the pedestrians. In one instance where

Ali was off to answer the call of nature, Hamed, a pedestrian fell into one of the holes and broke

a leg. His iPhone 7 was also broken, and so was his laptop. At the same time, it is evident that

Hamed missed an opportunity to attend an interview to which he was headed. Moreover, the fact

that Hamed's plan to marry after he had got the job, to which he was to attend an interview,

compounded his misery. The purpose of the paper is to indicate the legal liability of the Life Co

company towards Hamed by duty of care the and remedies to the damage suffered concerning

case laws.

1. Does Hamed have a case against the Life Co company?

The duty of care is one of the common-law practices under the law of torts. Hamed has a case

against the company. It is clear that the losses that he suffered were occasioned by the breach of

the duty of care by the company (Council, 2013). The company undertakes actions that can

increase the level of harm to the community. In this respect, the company should undertake

measures to ensure that the danger posed to the public is mitigated. If the company owed Hamed

the duty of care, then he has a case against them.

It is clear that Ali was an employee of the company, and his absence caused the injury and the

losses to Hamed. Liability lays on the company since it ought to have exercised reasonable care

to ensure that all the road users are safe. Hamed can sue the company for the tort of negligence.
It is sufficiently clear that he has a case against the Life Co company. The breakage of his leg,

breakage of the iPhone 7, and damage to the laptop are direct losses that he has suffered from the

negligence of the company (Council, 2013). He

should be compensated for these and other consequent and incidental losses related to the event.

2. Does Life Co owe any Duty of care? Explain what does the duty of care means citing

relevant cases.

To proof that the Life Co company owed a duty of care is based on factual grounds. To start with,

the company is under a legal obligation to offer reasonable care to the public who are

inconvenienced by the roadworks. At the same time, the company is at fault by leaving open

holes that are unmanned. It is clear that the company is negligent, as was the case in Donoghue

V. Stevenson, where a company negligently sold wine that had a snail in it. A client fell sick after

consuming the wine, and it was clear that the company owed the client a duty of care.

The duty of care is founded on a number factors and law and practice. All of them have to be

proven for the company to have been liable in a case of negligence involving the breach of the

duty of care. They include the following (Horsey & Rackley, 2015);

a) The company must owe the claimant a duty of care. Such a duty of care must have been

established under the law.

b) The actions of the company must have led to the breach of the duty of attention.

c) The consequences of the breach of the duty of care must have occasioned losses and or

suffering to the plaintiff.

d) The actions of the defendant must have led to the loss that caused loss or injury to the

plaintiff.

It is sufficiently clear that the duty of care is an established legal principle. At this juncture, the

existence of the duty of care is validated by the fact that the Life Co company ought to have

ensured the safety of all road users. Such an imposition of the duty of care is based on the fact

that their actions have made the road riskier to use, and hence they are under legal obligation to

provide reasonable levels of care to all road users to compensate for the increase in risk on using

the road. At this juncture, it is clear that they owe some levels of responsibility imposed by the

law, and are therefore liable in this case.

The next consideration is the effect-cause relationship. The company's direct actions led to the

loss that Hamed suffered (Horsey & Rackley, 2015). If the company had not dug holes, or if it

had proper warning signs or a permanent plan to have a person who waves flags, then Hamed

would not have fallen into the open hole. Therefore, the actions of the company directly led to

the injury that the plaintiff suffered.

Another consideration is whether the company owed Hamed the duty care in the first place.

Under the social contract, the company made the road riskier for human use. The concepts of the

social contract indicate that under the above circumstances, the company should compensate by

warning the public of the dangers posed. In this case, the company has to compensate for the

increased levels of danger by owing the people reasonable care, which amounts to a duty of care

under the common law (Horsey & Rackley, 2015). At the same note, it is clear that the actions of
the company led to the loss and injury suffered by the plaintiff. It is sufficiently clear that the

negligence of the company was an active and direct cause of loss to Mr. Hamed.

A case law will be necessary to put the matter into perspective. In the case of Heaven v Pender

(1883) 11 QBD 503, Court of Appeal) the court ruled that a supplier had a duty of care that he

owed to the employees. The facts of the show that the company ordered for ropes that were to be

used to hand on the side of a ship where the ropes suspended a stage. However, the ropes ripped

off as they were previously burned, and one of the workers was injured. The court determined

that the company was liable as it had breached the duty of care in this case.

In a similar scenario, in the case of Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951) [11], the company

that failed to provide protective gears (goggles) to an employee was ruled to have contravened

the duty of care and was held to have been liable. It is clear that in the duty of care is breached

only when the four factors mentioned above have been established.

2. Can Hamed sue for the loss of Job opportunity and delay of his marriage plans? Give a

rationale for your answer

There can be no denying that the incidence of the negligence by the company caused the loss that

Hamed suffered. The plans for Hamed were clear; he was going for an interview, and in case he

was to be considered for the job, he would have progressed with marriage plan. It is clear that he

missed an opportunity to be considered for the job, the fact that he was not sure whether he could

have been considered for the job notwithstanding. However, the courts have always seemed to

refrain from awarding damages on speculative matters, and it is clear that the plan for marriage

for Hamed was only based on an antecedent event.

In considering whether Hamed has a case against the company insofar as it pertains the loss of

the job opportunity, the following factors should be considered. To start with, the court should

consider the relationship between the acts of negligence by the Life Co company and the loss of

the job opportunity (Horsey & Rackley, 2015). It is clear that the opportunity that the negligence

of the company directly prevented Hamed from attending the interview. Therefore, the fact that

the neglige

nce of the Life Co company directly refrained Hamed from attending an interview meant that he

could sue them for that. It is evident that the damages that Hamed can be awarded by the court

under these circumstances are much less compared to the situation if he was already employed.

However, it is clear that he cannot sue the company for the loss of a job in any case since he was

not already guaranteed of consideration.

There were plans that hammed could have married after he could have got the job. The

probability of marriage was highly speculative, but it is clear that it was connected on the

chances that he would have been considered for the job upon which he was attending an

interview. Therefore, the relationship between the negligence of the Life Co company and the

failure of marriage is remote (Horsey & Rackley, 2015). Therefore, it is not advisable that

Hamed should sue for the failure to marry as he had planned. In any case, if he were guaranteed

of the job, then he would have sued the Life Co company for the loss of the opportunity to marry.

Therefore, it is that the connection between marriage plans and negligent actions of the Life Co

Company have no predictable relationship and Hamed cannot proceed with suing the company

on this. The threshold that has been established in the case of Mansfield v Weetabix (1997) CA
where a reasonable standard of the duty of care was connected with the reasonability of an event

to occur and the interrelation between events.

4. the defenses for negligence

There are some defenses in cases of negligence. They include contributory negligence where

Life Co can argue that Hamed's actions contributed to his loss. For instance, the company can

argue that if Hamed was exercising reasonable care, he might not have fallen into the pit. His

actions contributed to the loss and the injury that he suffered.

On the flipside, the company can argue that Hamed assumed the risk voluntarily. He did walk

right into the pit knowing well that he could have suffered bodily injury or damage to his

property (Levy, Golden & Sacks, 2016). Under such circumstances, Hamed cannot get any form

of compensation if it is proved that he voluntarily assumed risk, though it

is difficult to proof since the company had no one to wave signs at that time. Insanity is the third

defense that the Life Co can use.

5. Can Life Co defend itself by saying that it was not responsible for Ali's actions?

Life Co cannot defend itself by claiming that it was not responsible for Ali's actions. In the first

place, it is clear that Ali is an employee of the company. The doctrine of vicarious liability

suggests that the company or a firm can be held liable for the actions or the inactions of the

employees once they lead to loss or injury to the third parties. An example of such a case is the

matter between Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets [2017] 1 All ER 15. The test has
always been whether a reasonable man would consider the defendant to be acting on behalf of

the plaintiff.

The facts of this case are that a petrol station employee fought and racially abused a client. The

matter for determination by the court was whether the employer, who had all along tried to

restrain the defendant from beating the client, was vicariously liable. The supreme court

determined that the accused was liable. In a similar case, the Life Co company cannot deny

responsibility for the actions or inactions of Ali in this matter.

6. The differences between contract law and tort law

The differences between contract law and tort law are clear. To start with, the law of contract is

established to regulate and enforce agreements between two people and is, therefore, a private

law. Tort law, on the other hand, binds all people and does not require an express agreement for it

to be binding (Levy, Golden & Sacks, 2016). Terms of the contract are loosely guided by the

statutes, and the contracting parties have great freedom to establish a contract on their terms.

However, the law of torts is established under the statutes, and no personal agreement can negate

the provisio

ns of the law.

Conclusion
It is clear that the Life Co Company owed Hamed a duty of care. At the same time, the negligent

acts of the company were against what a reasonable man would have expected of the company.

Therefore, the company is fully liable for the immediate losses suffered (damage to the iPhone 7,

the breakage of the laptop, and break of the leg as well as the loss of an opportunity for job

consideration). Similarly, the company should be held liable for other coincidental losses

occurring to Hamed such as loss of other opportunities at the time may be hospitalized, the

medical expenses among others. However, it 's hard to determine whether the negligence of the

company made Hamed not to marry as he had planned to marry once he got the job. Therefore,

the remote connection between the probability of marrying and the negligent incident means

that Hamed cannot

sue

for

the

failure to marry.