Case study,I will have to attach a copy of the case.the name of the Study

,I will have to attach a copy of the .the clear of the file will be - Case Study ExampleA civil wrong occurs as a result of a persons employment to others which is created by one or more laws. A person who perpetrates a tort is referred to as a wrongdoer or a tortfeaser. A fault act of tort is referred to as a tortuous act (Stuhmcke 56). The principle goal of the law of tort is compensation of victims or their dependants. The generic pattern of tort comprises of an act or omission by the defendant which causes persecute to the plaintiff. The damage has to be caused by the fault of the defendant, and the fault must be a pee of harm acknowledged as attracting legal liability. The model of determining whether a tort occurred follows the act or omission leads to causation and faults a persons protected interests, which results in personal damage and injury (Stuhmcke 60). By suing Dangerfield, continental and Sandman Corporation on basis of negligence, Hartman has to prove several t hings in a judicial system of law. One, Hartman must prove that the three defendants owed her a duty of c ar. This concept is grounded in the ruling of the Donologhue v Stevenson case (1932) where the House of Lords turned down a prior law in which liability for careless behavior existed only in a number of separate, specified circumstances. The House of Lords asserted that general duty entails fetching reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which one can reasonably foresee would likely injure your neighbor. A Neighbor in this context refers to persons who are so closely and directly affected by a a nonhers act that they ought to have them in contemplation as being so affected when another is directing his/her mind to the acts or omissions which are called into question (McLaughlin 63). In addition to establishing a duty of care, Hartman must further prove that the damage she suffered was foreseeable. This concept was advanced in Caparo v. Dickman (1990) case where it must be established that there was proximity between herself and the three companies. Contributory negligence defense In this case, Dangerfield, continental and Sandman Corporations have a defense in that they did owe a duty of care to Hartman. However, Hartman was not responsible for her own safety as she was slack by walking in front of her car knowingly. As such, the three corporations can establish that Hartman was negligent and it is for that reason that she suffered the accident. Moreover, the defendants have a defense that Hartman did not read the contents of the receipt that indicated that the management was not responsible for damages incurred by valet parking customers. This concept is generally referred to as the plaintiffs default or contributory negligence. For this defense to be relied, the defendants have to show that Hartman is to blame for her suffering. Dangerfield, continental and Sandman Corporations must prove that Hartman exposed herself to the danger of being resus citate by walking in front of her car Hartman was negligent Hartmans negligence/fault contributed to her suffering. These conditions have been met as explained above. Although contributory negligence is a ordinary defense in tort, the defense does not free the defendants from liability. It acts to reduce the amount of damages payable y the defendant to the extent of the plaintiffs contribution. at once Hartman establishes that the three companies owed her a duty of care, she has to prove that the defendants were at fault. That means that Dangerfield, cont