Tort Law

If you order your research paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Tort Law. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Tort Law paper right on time.

Our staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Tort Law, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Tort Law paper at affordable prices!

1) The dispute which I attended to was heard at the County Court of Victoria.

) The parties which were involved in this dispute were Kimberly Kaye Hanvin which is the plaintiff however because she is an infant she is suing by her litigation guardian Kaye Julie Hanvin.

The defendant in this matter is the State of Victoria.

) The material facts of the dispute are as follows;Buy Tort Law term paper

During the luncheon recess on 0th October 000, students dismantled a college clock to the point that one of the dismantled parts was the clock face. The clock face was then used as a frisbee. It was then thrown by one of the students over the roof of one of the schools buildings and then struck the Plaintiff who was standing on the other side of the school.

The injury which occurred due to the incident was a jagged wound to the wrist which dissected a number of tendons and the partial dissection of another. The wound immediately began to bleed. The Plaintiff was then taken to the sick bay where her wounds were bandaged.

On Saturday, 1 November 000 she went to a party with her parents where there she realized she could not move some of her fingers and was taken to Alfred Hospital where she was referred to a specialist who decided upon surgery. On 6 November 000 she was admitted to Austin Hospital.

She was discharged from hospital two days after the surgery when the plaster was removed from her arm. 17 November she was back at college, a laptop computer was provided to her because she was unable to use her hand to write. She completed year 7 successfully but was unable to complete assignment tasks in art, painting and graphics for mathematics.

After physiotherapy was undertaken for approximately two months she regained movements in her wrist and gradually recovered, however the scaring from her surgery remained.

4) During this case many kinds of evidence were produced. The plaintiff displayed the actual object which had caused the damage to her wrist and consequently left the scaring on her wrist.

Medical reports were also displayed to the court to prove that the injuries that she was claiming for were real and could be proven.

Reports were also written by expert's in the field to show the court and the judge that the scars which eventuated from the operations the plaintiff will be there forever and there is no way that plastic surgery would be able to remove it therefore forever blemishing her beauty.

The schools policy was also admitted as evidence as if would help prove that a duty of care was owed by the school to the plaintiff.

5) The main issues before the court in this matter are the tort of Negligence. The plaintiff's allegations are against the servants or agents who basically are the teachers and staff and any other employee which was working at the school at the time. The following are the particulars of the plaintiffs case.

a) failing to supervise or adequately supervise the said college,

b) failing to supervise or adequately supervise the luncheon recess,

c) failing to provide any or any adequate system for adequately patrolling the school grounds during the luncheon recess,

d) failing to confiscate from the student the said metal part,

e) failing to inspect the grounds of the college during luncheon recess,

f) failing to keep any or any proper lookout,

g) failing to monitor the activity of students during the course of .the luncheon recess.

The defendants barristers to prove there case that the defendant did not own any duty of care to the plaintiff tried to apply a previous case with similar facts, Richards v State of Victoria (16) VR 16.

This case which was heard in the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria establishes that a schoolmaster owes to each of his or her pupils while under his or her supervision or control a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of the pupil. Such a duty requires the schoolmaster to take reasonable steps to protect the pupil against risks of injury which the schoolmaster should reasonably have foreseen.

The Barristers of the defendant further argued that there is no duty to avoid all accidents or injuries which may befall pupils while they are in attendance at the school. It is not a duty to ensure against harm but rather it is a duty to take reasonable care to avoid harm being suffered.

The plaintiff's barrister then read out the policies of the school which stated that during all breaks the school yard should be adequately supervised. He further argued that if the yard had been supervised "adequately" then the pupils would not have had time to dismantle the clock.

6) The courts decision was as follows.

The judge held that a clock that size could be dismantled and thrown just shows the lack of supervision of the students in the school yard. The judge also stated that dismantling the clock would have taken a space of time which was longer than was required for its detection if a proper system of supervision or proper supervision per se had been in place at the time.

The court also held that it was reasonably foreseeable that once the clock face was removed from the clock it was likely to be thrown in frisbee mode by one of the students. He considered that the element of causation had been proved.

Damages the Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages representing fair and reasonable compensation for the pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life suffered by her in the past and in the future and for the physical damage caused by this incident as well as damages being reasonable compensation for the cosmetic disability which has resulted and which, as a matter of probability, will be permanent.

The plaintiff was awarded $4,584. The judge came to this figure by assessing damages and had arrived at the figure of $40,000 compensation for the Plaintiff in all the circumstances. To this sum he added total sum of $584 to represent the medical and like expenses which have been paid by the litigation guardian, a sum of $64 which must be repaid to the Health Insurance Commission and a sum of $500 which the judged assessed as the damage suffered by the litigation guardian in terms of loss of employment in order to care for the infant Plaintiff.

Please note that this sample paper on Tort Law is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Tort Law, we are here to assist you. Your persuasive essay on Tort Law will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.

Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!