Question

2/       George is a farmer who, amongst other activities, has been in the business of raising chickens on a large scale. Given how many baby chicks are in the barn, they require a continuous supply of fresh air to have sufficient oxygen to survive. The equipment to do this is connected to the electric power supplied to the farm. In the past, George had suffered a minor loss of chickens from an interruption in this electric service and has, as a result, installed an auxiliary battery-operated power generator in the barn to be available as an emergency back-up. He has also taken the further precaution of having a battery-operated power failure detector in his bedroom so that if the electrical power in his house failed, a warning signal would alert him to the potential danger of loss of electricity to his barn.

Michael is a driver for Move ‘Em Transport Ltd. While driving the company’s truck on a night run, Michael allowed the vehicle to wander onto the shoulder of the road where the upper part struck overhead wires. As a result, electric power service in the area was interrupted for a period of five hours. The interruption extinguished the supply of fresh air to George’s barn and some 30,000 chickens died. Unfortunately, George had temporarily disconnected the alarm detector in his bedroom and so, on the one occasion when he needed it, it was not in operation. George brought an action for damages against both Michael and Move ‘Em Transport Ltd. to compensate him for the loss of his chickens.

Discuss the merits of the plaintiff’s (George’s) case, with particular reference to each of the elements of a negligence action. What will be the defences? What will be the likely outcome

Answer 1

There are four main elements of a negligence action which are duty, breach of duty, cause, and damage.

When we look into this case, it is clear that Michael who is a driver for Move ‘Em Transport Ltd. had a duty to run the truck properly so that no accident could occur but as he allowed the vehicle to wander onto the shoulder of the road where the upper part struck overhead wires and this caused the interruption of electricity in the nearby locality, this event indicates that Michael breaches its duty of being the responsible driver.

The cause, in this case, can be seen as the accident caused by Michael that resulted in the power failure in the locality and it resulted in the loss of 30,000 chickens of George’s barn. So if we look at the given case, George has a case of negligence against Michael and can ask for the damage of 30,000 chickens.

On the other hand, Michael can argue that the death of 30,000 chickens was the result of the negligence of George as despite having the backup system and the warning alarm, he did not put it on using the day when the accident happened.

Looking at the facts of the case, there is a greater chance that George will get the damage for the loss of his 30,000 chickens on the account of  negligence action as Michael should be having the duty of care and thus he must drive properly

There are four main elements of a negligence action which are duty, breach of duty, cause, and damage.

When we look into this case, it is clear that Michael who is a driver for Move ‘Em Transport Ltd. had a duty to run the truck properly so that no accident could occur but as he allowed the vehicle to wander onto the shoulder of the road where the upper part struck overhead wires and this caused the interruption of electricity in the nearby locality, this event indicates that Michael breaches its duty of being the responsible driver.

The cause, in this case, can be seen as the accident caused by Michael that resulted in the power failure in the locality and it resulted in the loss of 30,000 chickens of George’s barn. So if we look at the given case, George has a case of negligence against Michael and can ask for the damage of 30,000 chickens.

On the other hand, Michael can argue that the death of 30,000 chickens was the result of the negligence of George as despite having the backup system and the warning alarm, he did not put it on using the day when the accident happened.

Looking at the facts of the case, there is a greater chance that George will get the damage for the loss of his 30,000 chickens on the account of  negligence action as Michael should be having the duty of care and thus he must drive properly