The law of tort

The law of tort

Jim can sue for damages because the defendant i.e. Ruth owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and for reasonable action. She is to conduct herself in a reasonable and particular manner and by her not doing so she becomes subject to liability for injury to any person to whom she owes the duty of care. Leaving her car parked on a steep hill without a parking brake is unreasonable and torturous because, in tort that involves negligence, even if the tortfeasor neither believes that the accident will occur nor do they wish to bring about the consequences of their action. Ruth breached this duty through her actions that created a risk of injury resulting from negligence (Morissette 37).

Morissette (145) further states that where there is no risk created then negligence is nonexistent and for a tort to occur the risk also ought to be foreseeable.   The plaintiff has suffered a legally recognizable injury that is not only measurable but one can prove that the defendant’s action caused the plaintiff the injury and there is a linkage between the plaintiff injury and the defendant’s actions. The only issue that acts as a total defense to the defendant is the foreseeability which becomes a test of proximate cause. This determines whether Jim will be liable for damages. In proximate case, by Ruth leaving the car in neutral, the action may cause someone to be injured. It is not foreseeable that if the defendant leaves her vehicle in neutral, a fuel tank can explod…