Negligence is when a defendant abandons the basic standard care owed to a claimant, so their actions become a foreseeable threat and can be held accountable in court. A claimant can prove negligence only if the defendant holds a legal duty over them by either the principles developed by case law or a special relationship between the parties e.g. doctor/patient, security guard/citizen, etc. The claimant needs to be owed a duty of care whilst the defendant needs to have breached their legal duty by failing to exercise that care leading to their injury and damages by causation which is not too remote.
In this case, official security guards play a key role in the university of Wessex, Karl has a legal responsibility to ensure the safety and security of students and buildings and to prevent crimes like theft and physical fights by safeguarding and surveillance. The security guard’s role is to control and calm the large crowd down whilst keeping students safe and guarded. Injuries caused by security guards can lead to critical litigation. Security guards are duty-bound to perform their responsibilities in a non-negligent way. Therefore, based on the laws of a particular jurisdiction, security guards can end up facing a personal injury claim if their conduct amounts to negligence. To establish whether Karl owed Kiran a duty of care can be determined with Lord Atkin’s ‘neighbor principle’ developed in Donoghue V Stevenson where the manufacturer breached his duty owed to his neighbor by supplying dangerous products, hence a standard duty of care is owed all neighbors who are ‘affected by our acts or omissions’. (UKHL100 House of Lord) In Caparo V Dickman, no duty of care was owed as there was not sufficient proximity between Caparo and the auditors. (Cooke, Tort law 1) Caparo test allows the court to assess there is a duty of care owed to Kiran as the large crowd emerging meant that accidents were foreseeable and increasing the risk of injury and harm to Kiran and there was indeed sufficient proximity between Kiran and the security guard as he knocked her over and caused her fall, therefore, is it reasonably fair and just as he breached his owed duty of care to students since Karl is the authoritative figure in the relationship.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
As a security guard, Karl has a legal responsibility to protect students instead he breaches that duty, causing injury to Kiran’s knee. Simple accidents like carelessness or thoughtlessness can open a security guard up to liability for negligence. While he did not intend to injure or otherwise hurt the student, he had a duty to calm down the crowd in a non-negligent manner. By unintentionally knocking down Kiran causing her to fall and get injured, Karl breached his duty to maintain the safety of students. A reasonable person could foresee that due to the pressure of one security guard attempting to control a massive crowd of students, there are risks of accidents and pushing students. So, whether Karl is liable would depend on the brutality of Kiran’s cut on her knee, a deep cut requiring medical attention would qualify Kiran to claim compensation based on the negligence or breach of duty. In Harris V Pizza Hut of Louisiana security guards breached their duty by eating lunch whilst robbers shot claimants, hence security guards face legal implications by failing to show care(Hodgson Tort law 1)
In law, ‘trespass to the person’ refers to deliberately intervening with an individual’s body or freedom. It is considered a civil injustice where someone can be held liable in tort for battery or assault hence defendants may be required to compensate their victims rather than face jail time. The defendant must cause direct and instant injury to the claimant where they are tortious per se without evidence of harm. Trespass to a person reimburses the claimant for direct and intentional harm whereas the duty of care compensates a claimant for which is unintentional and indirect e.g. accidental injury. Spencer approach Kiran by staring at her and sending her 10-20 unwanted, unreciprocated texts and then also with intimidation and threatening he will do something dangerous if she refuses to let him have her. Kiran can get a restraining order against Spencer due to the harassment act 1997, ‘which is not legally defined but gives an indication of the types of behavior that may be displayed in a stalking offense; following a person, contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means, loitering in any (public) place’ (The Crown Prosecution Service, GOV) Wilkinson V Downton where the wife faced great distress after a practical joke was used to enforce ‘tortious liability’ on those who caused anxiety and distressed to others.
In Collins V Wilcock [1984] Golf IJ describes assault as ‘an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on his person’ where a woman was undesirably touched by a policeman (Glazebrook, P. R The Cambridge Law Journal Vol.45) hence assault laws protects Kiran who is fearing battery and who are touched without consent. As opposed to a battery, the unethical nature of assault remains not in the undesirable physical abuse, but in the predictability of abuse. Spencer must have performed willingly with a complete intention for Kiran to ‘apprehends the application of unlawful force’; Whilst Kiran ‘reasonably apprehends the immediate and direct application of unlawful force; So Spencer ‘has no lawful justification or excuse’ (Horsey & Rackley, Tort Law, 1) Assault needs to have passed the test of reasonable apprehension where Kiran should anticipate infliction of battery and defendant has to be in the position ready to do inflict physical force like In Stephens V Myers, where the defendant threatened the claimant with violence also with a clenched fist. But Spencer cannot carry out an illegal threat as ‘I don’t know what I’ll do’ is too ambiguous and vague to lead to assault. But afterward, he stalked her and visited her premises, unlawfully, as another security guard breached his duty to care and violated the university’s security policy the university opened to liability since one of their students, Spencer committed battery. Johnson V Fourth Court Appeals, Sue was raped and beaten in her apartment and she sued the security guard on duty the night of the incident. The jury ‘found the guard negligent and his conduct a proximate cause of the assault’. (Supreme court of Texas) Hence the security guard not only failed his duty by giving the code, but he also failed to protect students from external harm in the building.
The criminal justice act 1988 section 39 classifies battery as the intentional and direct application of force where spencer would be ‘liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months’’. Spencer committed battery as he acted intentionally by pushing Kiran which led to imminent apprehension of such contact and harmful or offensive contact. A battery is an intentional tort, unlike an act resulting from negligence which is unintentional, by accident. Kiran suffered physical, irreversible brain damage, mental and emotional causing her distress and anxiety. In A v UK 1998, the defendant beat her son with a garden cane. The defendant was ‘’charged under s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. ‘(Art 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights)So Spencer will be liable for battery against Kiran even if his intention was not to cause brain damage.
The ambulance telephone operators can also be held negligent as they breached their duty and risked life by not clarifying the address.
Overall, Taylor’s threatened to tell Karl’s boss, which Wessex university according to UK law if security guards are behaving reasonably within the bounds of their employment, employers can be held vicariously liable. Only when an employee commits an act so shocking and horrendously unwarranted to be considered beyond the limits of their duties can an employer successfully avoid vicarious liability. But Kiran can argue in many cases victims will claim that security guards have not been correctly trained, which can also open employers to liability. Therefore, Wessex university may be at fault for creating hazardous situations (large crowds) and failing to ensure the safety of students, they are responsible for failing to protect Kiran in various ways as the incidents happened on university premises due to university staff. In Thompson V Rose, Rose faced stabbing by another student Thompson hence sued UCLA for violating their duty of care towards her, but the California Supreme Court finally overruled, confirming that universities do owe a duty of care to students. (California Supreme court) But Wessex university can argue Kiran should have reported Spencer’s threats then Wessex university could take extra precautions to ensure that their students are protected from foreseeable dangers.
Stuck on your essay?
