Discuss About The Compensation Law Cambridge University Press?
In this case, acting as the defence attorney, I have noted certain points of defence to safeguard the rights of my client. My line of defence would be based on the following points of action.
Motor Vehicle Accidents
Referring to the claims of Palintiff-1, the Act will, in certain cases, put the blame under contributory negligence on the defendant when the defendant is the driver. But it has to be proved beyond doubt that defendant was intoxicated and is not in a position to prove that the harm was possible regardless of her intoxication.
Plaintiff-1 was checking cars for possible drink-driving, but was yet to perform the test on the defendant when the accident took place. One of the tyres of my client’s car drove over Plaintiff-1’s foot, causing a minor a concussion, which the medical report proved to be harmless.
My client is surely in a position to prove that this could have happened even if she was driving without intoxication. This is human error of judgement and such errors are common on the roads.
Hence, I plead NOT GUILTY against the charges put by Plaintiff-1.
Statutory Safety Requirements
In the matters related to driving as well as moving as a pedestrian on the busy roads of the modern cities, there occur scenarios where certain safety requirements need to be followed by all citizens and which are also prescribed under the laws of the land.
Now, when I refer to the medical condition of Plaintiff-2, it is proved beyond doubt by the available medical reports of Ms. Hua that she was suffering from an acute Stress Disorder. Such patients are always advised not to travel alone, especially when they are prone to sudden risks of stress.
Her failure to abide by such essential safety requirement is a case of her conduct falling well below the prescribed standard of care and is therefore a case of contributory negligence on her part.
If I go into the cause of Ms. Hua’s medical predicament, I wold like to quote the judgement of the honourable court in the case of Froom v Butcher and I quote: "The question is not what was the cause of the accident? It is rather what was the cause of the damage?”
In consistency with the negligence inquiry conducted in this case, I strongly believe that the negligence of Plaintiff-2 has a definitive connection to the harm that she suffered.
Honourable court should take note that it was not because of the negligence of the defendant that Plaintiff-2 suffered the damage.
Hence, I plead NOT GUILTY against the charges put by Plaintiff-2.
Cane, P. and Atiyah, P.S. Atiyah's Accidents, Compensation and the Law. Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Deakin, S.F., Johnston, A. and Markesinis, B. Markesinis and Deakin's Tort Law. OUP Oxford, 2012
 Law Reform Miscellaneous Act 1965 (NSW), s 9(1)
 Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) s138(2)(c)(d); Petracho v Griffiths NSWCA 302
 Jones v Livox Quarries Ltd  2 QB 608
 "a prudent man will guard against the possible negligence of others when experience shows such negligence to be common.": GRant v Sun Shipping Co Ltd  AC 549, 567 (Lord du Parcq)
 Froom v Butcher  1 QB 286
 Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), s 138(2), CLA, s 50