C2.U2

THE LAW OF TORT

Unit 3

Fact

Being in a hurry, Clark parked his new motorbike in the parking lot of the school basement to try to get in class on time. The spot where he parked was exclusively reserved for cars. Diana (a teacher in Clark’s school), about to be late for class as well, quickly stopped and backed her car into the spot where she often parked, the same spot where Clark had just parked his motorbike. Because the light was dim and Diana was in a hurry to get to class, she did not look carefully and her car hit Clark’s motorbike as she was reversing. A “thud” was heard and Clark’s motorbike fell over and was damaged. The back of Diana’s car was also scratched...!

Hearing the noise and seeing the accident, Clark run towards her. He angrily cried out, “You have broken my motorbike!”.

Diana also lost her temper and yelled at Clark: “It’s your motorbike that scratched my car. It was parked illegally. Why aren’t you apologizing to me?”

3

What is your opinion?

Question

01. Who was wrong in this case?

Please explain

Answer: Both Clark and Diana were wrong.

They both violated their duty of care as prescribed by the law, causing damage. Diana’s duty was to look out for danger while driving her car: As Diana hit Clark’s motorbike while hurriedly reversing the car without looking, she violated such duty and it was foreseeable that her negligence would cause an accident. Clark had a duty to properly park his vehicle in the right place so as not to cause inconvenience or accident to others. As he parked his motorbike in a spot exclusively reserved for cars, he violated his duty and it was foreseeable that his action would result in an accident.

In legal terms, “Fault” relates to the subjective consciousness of people while they were violating the law. Fault (with or without intention) shall be considered when apportioning responsibility for compensation.

4

Question

02. What liability does Clark owe to Diana in this case?

Answer: Clark’s liability to Diana and everyone else in the basement parking lot is: to park his motorbike in the right place, so that he does not cause inconvenience or even an accident to anyone.

Question

03. Does Clark have liability for Diana’s damage?

Answer: No Clark does not have liability to compensate for Diana’s damage, since his wrongful parking did not directly cause scratches to Diana’s car.

Question

04. What is Diana’s liability in this case?

Answer: Diana has a responsibility that every driver has: keeping a proper lookout while controlling vehicles of transport so as not to cause damage or injury to people around her.

5

Question

05. Does Diana have to compensate Clark for his crushed motorbike?

Answer: No Diana may have to partly compensate for Clark’s damage due to her lack of proper care while reversing the car, which resulted in Clark’s motorbike being hit and crushed. However, it was also Clark’s own fault that he improperly parked the motorbike, as he should have been aware of the possible consequences. Therefore, Diana’s liability to compensate for Clark’s damages would be partially reduced.

Question

06. Can Diana claim compensation from the management of the basement, who is a third party involved, for the damage she suffered?

Answer: Yes In this case, there was a civil contract (bailment of property) between Diana and the management of the basement, and the management had the duty to make sure her parking lot was safe and free for her to park the car. Failure to monitor and guide Clark to appropriately park his vehicle may potentially cause the management to be liable. Besides, the dim light in the basement may also have been a contributing factor that caused the accident if it is proven that the light was lower than the standard level. However, in this case, the accident occurred partly because of Diana’s fault, thus the basement management would only be responsible for compensating part of the damages corresponding to their fault.

6

Question

07. Is there any violation that can arise under both non-contractual civil liability and criminal liability? And if there is, under what circumstances?

Answer: Yes, there is.

Some behaviors that will incur civil liability could constitute criminal offenses if such violations cause considerably serious consequences. In serious cases such as these, the law considers such violations to be dangerous enough to society to warrant disciplinary action.

Question

08. Assault and battery, destroying property, and even trespassing are all intentional violations of civil law and can also constitute criminal offenses. Brainstorming: why is it that intentional violations of the civil law are considered more serious than pure acts of negligence?

Answer: Intentional violations of the civil law often cause more serious damage than those which are unintentional. A person committing an intentional act is likely well aware of what damages his/her act would cause, but continues the action regardless of consequences. This behavior is considered malicious and dangerous to society.

7

What if

What if: What if Clark has liability to compensate Diana for her damage, but he is just a minor (under 18 years old) and the amount of compensation exceeds Clark’s capacity? What should be done.

Answer: Even though Clark is a minor, he still has liability to compensate Diana for the damage. If Clark is unable to compensate, Diana could: (i) In the case that Diana has bought auto insurance for the car, make a claim to the insurance company for compensation, unless Diana hit Clark’s motorbike intentionally; (ii) request Clark’s parents or his guardian to compensate; (iii) request the school to compensate on Clark’s behalf (if Clark is under 15 years old) because Clark caused damage during school hours when the school should have been supervising Clark; (iv) file a lawsuit against Clark and proceed to judgement.

Diana has a maximum three-year time limit to file a law suit, and if she wins, she will have another 05 years to request judgement enforcement.

8

What if: Clark was driving his motorbike carefully down the street in accordance with the law and Diana suddenly walked into the road in a non-pedestrian area without looking. Clark immediately applied his brakes when he saw Diana but it was too late. Clark’s motorbike hit Diana, his motorbike was damaged, and Diana’s suffered injuries as well as the loss of her groceries. In this situation, who is liable for negligence? Why? Answer: In this case, Diana is the party who was negligent by failing to use caution while crossing the road. This violation of Diana resulted in the collision with Clark. Clark did not have any fault because he drove his motorbike safely in compliance with the law and could not have guessed that Diana would have stepped into the vehicle roadway without being cautious.

Therefore, Diana has liability and must compensate Clark for the damage to his vehicle and bears responsibility for her own damage due to her negligence.

What if: Clark was driving his motorbike on the road in complete compliance with the law. Suddenly, he was hit in the face with a rock that was thrown up by a vehicle in the opposite lane. This made him lose control of his motorbike and hit Diana, who was crossing the street just a few feet away from Clark. Does any party have liability to compensate for the other party’s damage?

Why? Answer: In this case, neither party was responsible. The fact that Clark was hit by a rock is an unexpected and unpredictable cause, and neither party violated the civil law, so neither party has liability for compensation.

9

Discussion activity

1. We are all responsible for our own behavior.

We all have a duty to be reasonably careful to avoid injuring other people or their property. List out duties that a reasonable person would have while performing the following actions: riding a bicycle or skateboard, playing on the playground, driving an automobile, cooking food in a restaurant, delivering papers in a neighborhood, shooting a BB rifle, playing soccer, inviting people into your home, going swimming, repairing a friend’s bicycle.

2. A local storekeeper, Mr. Easton, is sick and tired of the

kids leaving their bikes outside the entrance to the store after school and being rowdy inside the store. Their bikes block the way so other customers can’t get in and other customers stay away when the students are “hangin’ out” in his store. Angrily, the storekeeper posts a sign on the door that reads: “Absolutely No Students Allowed Until After 5:00 p.m.” Some of the students just grumble but others want to do something constructive about the problem.

Question: Can Mr. Easton legally restrict students from entering his store?

Role-play a scene with the student making a plan. How can they negotiate with Mr. Easton so that they may be permitted to shop in the store after school?

10

11

12

The Oxygen, 628C Ha Noi Highway, An Phu Ward, District 2, Ho Chi Minh City.

P. (+84) 28.1234.5678 F. (+84) 28.1234.5678 E. info@justicemagic.com www.justicemagic.com