Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

AIBU to ask you for help on who I should sue...?

105 replies

stuckstudent · 31/12/2016 10:32

I need to preface this by saying I'm a regular poster who has name changed as this isn't a RL scenario - I'm absolutely stuck with part of an assignment I don't want my tutor to work out I don't know what I'm doing

Six months ago you visited a restaurant, before you entered a dog escaped from a pet shop two doors away. Dog runs into the road causing a car to swerve and hit a lamppost which in turn falls on the pavement and causes a chair on the pavement, belonging to the restaurant, to fly into the air. The chair hits you on the head, knocks you unconscious and you break an arm in the fall. You have to take 4 months off work.

If you wanted to pursue a personal injury and loss of earnings claim who would you issue proceedings against? I think you would claim against the restaurant's public liability insurance but my DH thinks you, and the car driver, would pursue a claim against the pet shop for negligence...

AIBU to ask MN to save my sanity?!

OP posts:

Paddington68 · 31/12/2016 10:47

The restaurant. If they then want to claim against there other people in the chain of event that is up to them.

BellyBean · 31/12/2016 10:48

If I had an accident at a swimming pool (loose tile or something), I'd probably not sue the pool. If it was a negligent contractor the pool would be able to pursue a claim with them and so on.

soloula · 31/12/2016 10:49

You'd claim against the restaurant's public liability and it's up to their insurer to then chase back up the chain, probably ultimately to the pet shop who are responsible for keeping the dog under control. No difference here from a big car accident where you're the last car that was shunted after a car ploughed into the back of a queue car six cars back. Your claim is against the car that went into you. It's up to the insurers to chase the other parties behind the scenes.

Also - i think they purposefully chose a dog as the escapee as dog owners are responsible for the actions of their stray dogs, unlike cats, rabbits and other likely inhabitants of a pet shop.

Original poster

stuckstudent · 31/12/2016 10:50

Cake YOU HAVE MADE EVERYTHING BETTER. I'VE JUST GOOGLED CAUSATION IN TORT AND IT'S WHAT I NEEDED.

It's still a load of mumbo jumbo but I might be able to make some sense of it and apply the case law.

Thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou.

OP posts:

ShowMePotatoSalad · 31/12/2016 10:51

have you considered contacting Watchdog? Geddit, geddit?

I'll get me coat...

Thistledew · 31/12/2016 10:52

Apply the 'but for' test to identify the (potential negligence).

But for the driver losing control, the lamp post would not have fallen and the chair would not have hit you. The driver in turn would say that but for the dog escaping he would not have lost control.

You sue the driver, who would raise a defence and part 20 counterclaim against the pet shop.

You are welcome. My bill at hourly rates will be with you in due course.

Thistledew · 31/12/2016 10:54

*(potential) negligence.

thecolonelbumminganugget · 31/12/2016 10:55

Did a law degree 10 years ago so this is half remembered knowledge (I await correction from someone more on it)

You in theory can sue anyone you like however to be successful you have to establish a few things, that you were owed a duty of care, that it was reasonably forseeable that harm would result as a result of a breach of duty of care and that the it is in the public interest for a case to be brought.

I think you would struggle to prove all three in relation to anyone here, but the one that most closely owed you a duty of care was the restaurant. Whether is was reasonably forseeable that by putting tables and chairs out in the street you would end up with a broken arm is the difficult bit.

myoriginal3 · 31/12/2016 10:56

I don't think the restaurant could have foreseen the chain of events but the pet shop could have, therefore I'd go after them.
How injured are you though lol

myoriginal3 · 31/12/2016 10:57

And does the pet shop have insurance!!!

dowhatnow · 31/12/2016 10:58

I would have said the car driver as he caused the accident which ended up hurting you.

CakeMakesEverythingBetter · 31/12/2016 10:58

Yvw student. It's been a while nearly twenty years since I did my law degree but I still remember how hard it was. Best of luck for the rest of your studies

myoriginal3 · 31/12/2016 10:58

Are you suing for trauma too hah

Rainbowshine · 31/12/2016 10:58

Was just going to say look up chain of causation but you've already been pointed in the right direction. Sounds like one of the ludicrous scenarios that I had to endure during my LLB studying days. Watch out for one about builders called Bodgit and Runn

Megatherium · 31/12/2016 10:59

I don't understand how you have been set this exercise if you've not covered causation in tort in your course?

stiffstink · 31/12/2016 11:02

Go for the driver. They should be travelling at a speed that would allow them to stop safely even if a dog runs out in the road (and shouldn't they hit the dog instead of veering onto the pavement?)

peggyundercrackers · 31/12/2016 11:02

Why would you ask a bunch of strangers who know don't know what they are doing for an answer?

Candlestickchick · 31/12/2016 11:03

stuckstudent

It isn't just about causation. Causation is one element of the tort of negligence.

You have to show against any defendant:

A) the existence of a duty of care
B) that this duty has been breached
C) that this breach caused loss.

I think you might struggle with breach against some of these potential defendants e.g. the restaurant so causation doesn't come into it regarding them.

In practice I disagree with thistledew, I wouldn't just sue the driver as I'm concerned that there's no breach of duty on the part of the driver so I would sue the pet shop (at least) as well rather than wait for the driver to raise an additional claim (not a counterclaim I don't think) against the pet shop. Protect your own position in who you sue - you need the pet shop in so sue them yourself.

The pet shop may try to argue that one of the other defendants broke the chain of causation with their negligent act. I don't think they'd get very far - you may also wish to look up joint and several liability - more than one defendant can be liable to you for the same loss. I think the pet shop'/ best argument is remoteness.

This thing a couple of people have mentioned about suing down the line eg you sue restaurant who sues local authority is completely wrong.

Thistledew · 31/12/2016 11:03

The problem about going after the pet shop directly is remoteness of damage and whether the car driver (or indeed collapse of the lamppost) is a new intervening act.

Are these buzz phrases sounding familiar?

Fintress · 31/12/2016 11:06

Look up the 'but for' rule

QuandryQueen · 31/12/2016 11:06

You aren't supposed to swerve for an animal! It causes way more issues than hitting an animal. So I'd sue the driver for swerving.

alfagirl73 · 31/12/2016 11:06

I'm not going to give you the answer because that wouldn't be fair to you, but you need to look at a number of things:

Who owed a duty of care to whom
Who breached their duty of care
What harm was caused by the breach - consider the "but for" test and material contribution
Look at breaks in the chain of causation
Consider reasonable foreseeability
Consider remoteness of damage/harm
Consider several options - in law questions there is often more than one right answer as it may depend on other information that isn't provided - you will be expected to consider this in your answer e.g.: " if x... then you would take y course of action... but if y then you would take x course of action".

Remember to look up case law to back up your answer - there is ALWAYS caselaw that supports the answer you are expected to give. So say things like "in the case of Smith v Jackson [date], it was determined that it was reasonably foreseeable that a dog escaping...." etc... etc... and then go on to say "in the case at issue (the scenario you've been given)..." and identify similarities and then discuss the options for suing.

Also - in your answer - break it down - it helps make your answer concise and clear in your points. Remember to discuss things like duty of care etc... the tutor doesn't know what is in your head - state the obvious and cover all the aspects you need to consider when identifying who is liable to whom.

I hope this helps; I work in law, specialise in Tort and mentor other students. Good luck!

Temporaryname137 · 31/12/2016 11:07

Weeeell, I don't really agree with getting help online.... If you qualified as a lawyer, how would you cope?! But I think the question is asking you to determine who owes you a duty of care. So take each in turn and work that out. Then look at which has the most liability and go from there - the answer could be all or one or two.

Violetcharlotte · 31/12/2016 11:08

Assuming the dog was for sale in the pet shop (unlikely I think, but let's go with that), I would say I'd claim against the pet shops PLI as they were negligent and let the dog escape.

DJBaggySmalls · 31/12/2016 11:09

You sue the driver.
The driver sues the pet shop.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Swipe left for the next trending thread