Memorandum of law

Introduction

In law, negligence is defined as the failure to take reasonable care. Negligence either in place of work or during the day to day activities may result to harm in other people. In this case harm refers to any injuries, death, destruction of property as well as any economic loss that may arise from negligence. Further, the injury is said to either personal or bodily. Cases of injury include psychological injury, disease, acceleration of disease or its recurrence and any pre-natal injuries. When cases of negligence are presented to the courts of justice, the possible consequences are either imprisonment or damages.

Damages represent any form of monetary compensation. For any court, damages to be awarded or for a person to be convicted, negligence must be proven. Further, the court has to consider the immediate cause of injury, whether the injury was foreseeable, the conduct of each party and also consent and responsibility of the accused. We shall use IRAC method in the case of Amanda to determine how ruling based on negligence can be made through the application of law.

Amanda crashes on to Felix with her scooter after falling asleep on her way from school. This was after she fell asleep on her scooter regardless of the fact that she was on medication. In addition, Amanda had a history of narcolepsy and had tried various remedies to overcome the situation. The issue is whether Amanda is guilty of negligence after crashing on to Felix given her medical state and the fact that she was under medication.

According to the House of Lords, everyone owes their neighbor the duty of care. The first law that would affect this issue arising from the 1961 law on AC 388 case summary of the United States laws (Shapo, 2016). The law states that the defendant is held liable if the loss caused was foreseeable. In this case, the defendant is liable for the entire losses even though it is greater that was expected. The law on negligence was established in 1932 AC case summary of Donoghue vs. Stevenson (Shapo, 2016). Amanda would also be guilty of the offense if there is a proximal cause and if she was able to foresee it happening. Had she been experiencing what she refers to as embarrassing naps for the period less than two months, she would have been able to foresee the possibility of her causing the accident.

Amanda’s case is a complicated one. It would be hard for her to foresee that her condition may cause harm to people. However, she had looked for professional help and thought her condition was fully under control. Therefore it would have brought some difficulties on the side of Felix to prove that Amanda was really responsible for negligence. First, it would have been hard for him to prove that her negligence was the immediate cause of the accident. Secondly, he cannot prove that Amanda can foresee the accident. Thirdly, he cannot prove that Amanda was not responsible while driving. On the side of Amanda, she cannot take consent immediately given her medical state and her steps to curb the narcolepsy.

In conclusion, the case may be hard for the jury to rule. This is because he tort law on negligence demands that a person compensates the affected in terms of paying damages or serves a jail term. But since Amanda had taken the necessary precautions, they might pardon her based on the fact that she was not able to foresee the accident. Further, Felix had to show proof of harm or damage cause

References

Shapo, M. (2016). Principles of Tort Law. West Academic.