On December 12th 2012, round 5.40pm, my client, Mrs J. Smith, was involved in a car accident, which has caused her to be off work since the accident due to a broken back and several major surgeries. The accident was caused by the negligence of your client, Mr J. Sherwood, who was reported, by Mrs Smith, to be driving while ‘texting on his phone’, which led to him to crash into her car, as he did not spot at the red lights.
In the previous letter I had sent, I stated what the liability requirement in the tort of negligence were, regarding this case. Now I am going to apply these criteria to the case in question. Firstly, there is evidence that the offender, Mr Sherwood, owed my client a duty of care, which he breached. The offender should have been driving reasonably, as he is an ordinary person doing a task, driving. The first part to check if a duty of care is owed is foreseeability, and it is clear that it was foreseeable that such accident would happen, as driving while using a hand-held phone would be classed as careless or dangerous driving, as the person capacity to drive would be lowered, due to them not being focused on the task, which in this case lead to a c car accident, and serious damage to a person, physical as well as mental, including the car itself.The second factor is proximity, which as previously explained means, how close or proximate was the event (timing), space and relationship.Order now
There is no relationship between Mrs Smith and Mr Sherwood, as they were two ordinary people driving on a road. However, the act of crashing into Mrs Smith’s car was proximate in time and space, as it was immediate, as well as the damages of the event. This increases the fact that Mr Sherwood owes my client a duty of care and has b. .the costs of these have to be included, as well as prescriptions, physiotherapy etc. On the other hand, the non-pecuniary losses, focus on the loss of future earning, and are more elevated.
First of all, the costs for the repairs of the car would be of roughly ?350. The fact that Mrs Smith has been off work for such a long period, about 6 months, and she is estimated to be off work for another 6, causes the amount of compensation amount to raise. My client earned ?20.000 a year, which is what she’s going to lose. This added to the amount owed for the physical damages equals to ?74.000.
My client is likely to recover from this accident, and will also be able to carry on her job as a teacher, meaning that are currently no other future losses which would be caused by this accident. Underneath I have included a screenshot of the website I used to come to this conclusion.