For my English legal system assignment we have been given a case to look up and answer 14 questions about the case, I will read the case study and answer the questions using the information provided in the case.
Describe the process that you went through to locate the case
The process in which I had to do was to access the student page on the university website and navigated to the electronic resources, to access the web pages west law and lexis library. I then typed in the names and hit searched, therefore finding the case
How would you find other cases, which are related to the case?
The way in which you can find cases which are related to the case in question, is by reading the case itself as prosecutors, defendants and judges reference similar cases to strengthen their arguments.
Who were (a) the defendant and (b) the plaintiff?
The defendant was Weetabix limited and Mr Tarleton who was the lorry driver and the plaintiff was Mr and Mrs Mansfield
What were the facts of the case?
The defendant Mr Tarleton was in control of a lorry which lost control and ending in a collision with a shop, which the claimant owned due to the driver being in a hypoglycaemia state cause of low blood sugar.
Name the judge who heard the case at first instance
the judge at the first instance was Mr Justice Collins as he gave judgement to the plaintiffs by holding the defendant liable for negligence.
What was the outcome of the case first instance
The outcome of the case was Mr Tarleton, who was at the time driving a truck, had a hypoglycaemia attack, in where his blood sugar levels was low, which cause 3 minor incidents and resulting in him failing to take a sharp turn and colliding with a shop, causing damage.
Who appealed and on what grounds?
The defendant that put in for an appeal was Weetabix limited and Mr Terence Tarleton. They did this on the grounds that the driver was unaware at the time and before the accident even occurred that he was suffering from a condition that affected his ability to drive safely and due to this should not be liable for negligence as he was not at fault. They also appealed on the grounds that he should not be blamed due to the condition coming on gradually throughout the day and not presenting it self suddenly and cause of this was able to control some aspects of the vehicle.
What did the plaintiff counsel argue?
They argued that a driver who is involved in an accident, where the circumstances are like these can only stop being liable for negligence, if his actions was beyond his physical control and because he did have, some sort of control on the vehicle he should be liable for this. The counsel Mr Andrews also argues that because the effect came on gradually, and not suddenly he should...