Task 4.

1 applies the elements of the tort negligence and defenses

in above business situation.
According to INC, 2015 they mentioned that the elements of a cause of action for
negligence are , A legal duty to use due care, A breach of that duty, A reasonably
close causal connection between that breach and the plaintiffs resulting injury, and
Actual loss or damage to the plaintiff. everyone is responsible, not only for the
result of his willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his want of
ordinary care or skill in the management of his property or person, except so far as
the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself.
Tort Law
A host of wrongful criminal and civil acts may expose a business to liability.
Examples include a physician defrauding the Medi-Cal program, a dealership selling
a car with a defectively designed fuel tank, and a distributor reneging on a contract
to provide a fixed amount of memory chips at a preset price. Of these three, tort law
covers the second example - civil wrongs, other than a breach of contract, that
injure persons, property, economic interests or business relationships and are
caused by the acts or omissions of others.
To avoid debilitating verdicts and bottomless attorney fees, all businesses need a
basic understanding of tort principles. This will allow them to identify and minimize
potential risks and to select the best form of business.
Negligence
A person is negligent if he fails to exercise ordinary care to avoid injury to other
persons or their property. In other words, he failed to do something a reasonably
careful person would do or he did something a reasonably careful person would not
do under the same or similar circumstances. For example, if a person causes an
auto accident because he was driving faster than was safe for the existing
conditions, the resulting lawsuit will likely include a negligence claim.
Essential elements in tort negligence such as;

Duty of care
Breach of duty
Actual loss or harm

Duty of care
The duty of care requires the use of ordinary care to prevent injury to others and is
determined on a case-by-case basis.Weirum v. RKO Gen
Policy factors which must be balanced in determining the scope of a particular
defendants duty of care include the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the
degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection
between defendants act and plaintiffs injury, the moral blame attached to
defendants conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, and the extent of
defendants burden and the consequences to the community of imposing duty and
liability.
A duty of care is owed to all foreseeable plaintiffs, which means that a reasonable
person would have foreseen a risk of injury to the plaintiff under the circumstances.
If such a duty exists, the standard of care is that of a reasonably careful or prudent
person. In other words, a person's act or omission is measured against that of a
reasonably careful person in similar circumstances.
In order to scenario wele sudha need duty care such as , wele sudha cant park the
vehicale in front of Dumindas denting house, he should park the bike in a vehicle
park. Potta Naufer is the main person of this scenario his duty is deliver the pizza in
office hours. He cant deliver it on anytime. And he cant use the office bike to his
personal uses. We can find above things as a duty of care.
Breach of duty
A breach of duty occurs when one person or company has a duty of care toward
another person or company, but fails to live up to that standard. A person may be
liable for negligence in a personal injury case if his breach of duty caused another
persons injuries.
In a standard negligence case, a breach of duty usually occurs when a person fails
to act with the same reasonable care an ordinary person would use in the same
circumstances.
in many cases brought before the courts it is evident that a duty of care exists
between the defendant and the claimant. The real issue is whether or not the
actions of the defendant were sufficient to meet their duty. To determine this, the
court will set the standard of care that they should have met. This standard consists
of the actions which the court considers a reasonable person would have taken in
the circumstances. If the defendant failed to act reasonably given their duty of care,
then they will be found to have breached it.

This reasonable standard may be adjusted given the actual circumstances of the
case. For example, if the claimant is vulnerable, such as being disabled or frail, it is
reasonable to expect the defendant to have paid them special attention or taken
extra care over them as compared to someone who is fit and healthy.
Other types of tort cases have different ways to measure breach of duty. In
premises liability, the premises owners breach of duty is measured by the
relationship he has with the injured person. For instance, a business owner owes a
higher duty of care to a customer than she does to an unexpected trespasser.
According to the scenario breach of duty care is wele sudha park his delivery bike infront of
Dumindas denting house door. And potta naufer breach the duty of care is he took the delivery
bike to pick up his girl friend ( personal use) and he tried to make some deliveries on the way to
home because of the competition between wele sudha and potta Naufer that who can have the
most delivers. Urgent call is the reason to tend the duty of care of potta naufer and the famous
joker marvan silva breach the duty of care is he was not wearing seat belts. He breach the
government rules.
Actual loss or harm
If the allegedly negligent conduct does not cause damage, it generates no cause of
action in tort. The mere breach of a duty, causing only nominal damages,
speculative harm, or the threat of future harm or not yet realized or does not suffice
to create a cause of action for negligence. The plaintiffs damages cannot be
contingent or speculative. Negligence in drafting a will did not result in damages
until the testators death
Negligence causing only monetary harm does not give rise to emotional distress
damages.
In this element the claimant simply has to prove that the loss or damage was a
direct consequence of the defendants breach of duty of care. In other words that
there is a chain of causality from the defendants actions to the claimants loss or
damage. A simple test, called the but for test is applied. All the claimant has to
prove is that if it were not but for the actions of the defendant then they would not
have suffered the loss or damage.

Where there is more than one possible cause of the loss or damage, the defendant
will only be liable if it can be proved that their actions are the most likely cause.
The loss itself must not be too remote. It is an important principle that people
should only be liable for losses which they should have reasonably foreseen as a
potential outcome of their actions.
According to the scenario marvan silva got damage through the accident which is made by
potta Naufer.
Defenses to Negligence
According to findlaw, 2015 mentioned a business may defend against a negligence claim by
attacking any of the four negligence elements. Possible defenses include
(1) Challenging the status of the plaintiff and the corresponding duty of care,
(2) Asserting that it acted in accordance to the requisite standard of care,
(3) Attacking the causal link between act or omission and harm or injury,
(4) Questioning whether the plaintiff suffered any actual loss.
In addition, some jurisdictions allow an otherwise negligent party to escape some or all of its
liability if it can prove that the injured party was also negligent.
To successfully defend against a negligence suit, the defendant will try to negate one of the
elements of the plaintiff's cause of action. In other words, the defendant introduces evidence
that he or she did not owe a duty to the plaintiff; exercised reasonable care; did not cause the
plaintiff's damages; and so forth. In addition, a defendant may rely on one of a few doctrines that
may eliminate or limit liability based on alleged negligence.

Three of the most common doctrines are contributory negligence, comparative fault, and
assumption of risk. For instance, you may not be found entirely liable if the other party also was
negligent.

According to the author, both parties breach the duty of care because their negligence.

Potta naufer use the delivery bike for his personal use and he tried to deliver some
deliveries on the way to his home because of competition with wele sudha

Famous joker marvan did not wear his seat belts. He breached the government rule.
Because there is a rule have to wear seat belts while driving.

So both parties are liable for this incident because of their negligence. They breach their duty of
care.