Mrs Lim was driving her new car when it knocked into Moo Tai, a pedestrian, who was walking across the road. Moo Tai could have easily seen Mrs Lim’s car approaching. Mrs Lim saw Moo Tai walking across the road but she was so excited over her new car that she forgot to step on her brakes. Neither Mrs Lim nor Moo Tai took any evasive action.

Issue: The issue in the question is whether Mrs. Lim causes injuries to Moo Tai. Law: In order to determine Mrs. Lim causes injuries to Moo Tai, we must consider her duty of care & breach of duty and injuries. In order to advise Mrs. Lim we need to consider whether she has a duty of care when she is driving. Duty of care is proved through legal obligation. This is relevant to Donoghue v Stevenson case. Lord Atkin established liability on the basis that a neighbour principle existed between the two parties, to ensure reasonable care was taken in the production of the ginger beer, so as not to cause Mrs. Donoghue any unreasonable harm. So, Mrs. Lim has a duty of care towards Moo Tai while driving on the road.

Breach of duty of care –

Application: Once we establish the duty of care now we must consider the standard of care. The standard care is a measure of the duty owed. Mrs. Lim has ordinary of care, because she is not a professional driver. Once establish Mrs. Lim has an ordinary standard of care while driving on the road, consider did she breach the duty of care. Breach occurs when a person who owes a duty of care acts unreasonably, thereby causing harm to the plaintiff. Mrs. Lim has breached her duty of care and acted unreasonably by forgot to step the brakes. The case that related to this would be Blake v Galloway [2004]. Her breach has caused injuries towards Moo Tai. So, Moo Tai can claim damages against Mrs. Lim. Now we need to consider whether Moo Tai contributes negligently towards her injuries. The accident was less likely to occur if it weren’t for their failure to keep a proper lookout. Since Moo Tai has contributed to this accident, then he can’t claim fully recovery of damages from. Mrs. Lim. Therefore, Mrs. Lim’s deference would be contributory negligence. The case that related to this would be Pennington v Norris.

Damage/injuries has to be suffered which flowed directly from the breach –

In conclusion, Moo Tai cannot claim fully recovery of damages from Mrs. Lim because her deference would be contributory negligence