Mooting Assessment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Mooting Assessment - Essay Example The event was to be a charity fundraiser involving fun and frivolity and for this reason the respondent, Kaboom Ltd were hired to provide a Bulldozer along with a driver who will give rides to children around the ground. Unfortunately on the day of the carnival, the Bulldozer driver, Dave had been under the influence when driving the Bulldozer and consequently lost control of the vehicle. This accident claimed the lives of many people and some of them incurred serious injuries as well. My appellant, Ms. Muddleton, was the passenger on the Bulldozer and though she was physically unscathed, but my Lordship, she had the misfortune of witnessing this horrific incident and now suffers from a psychological condition called Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Ms. Muddleton’s condition is characterized by acute anxiety and is further distressed by flashbacks of the event, causing her to relive the experiences over and over again, because of negligence on part of Dave, who was under Kaboom Ltd’s employment, which automatically holds the company liable as well for the damage and destruction caused by Dave. Order of Argument: - Now my Lordship and my distinguished friend opposite may apply the principles established in the case of Joel v Morrison, reported in 1834 that deems Dave’s actions as ‘Going on a frolic of his own’ thereby exonerating the respondent from taking responsibility for this unfortunate incident. However, I would like to make a submission of the same case principles, according to which the employer is also held liable for a tort of an employee as long as it was carried out in the process of the employment. The accident occurred in course of Dave’s duty to his employer, Kaboom Ltd; he broke a solemn traffic rule and was heavily intoxicated while operating the vehicle that ultimately led to this catastrophe and caused the appellant great psychiatric harm. The principles established by the Salmond Test further reiterate my claims, according to which the tort of an employee is the result of authorization from the employer’s side. I do agree that Dave did not have any sort of authorization from the respondent, but that still fails to vindicate them for as per the Close Connections Test, the employee; in this case Dave’s tort is closely related to his employment, which automatically holds the employer, Kaboom Ltd vicariously liable for their employee’s action. In further support of my submission, I would like your Excellency to turn his/her attention to the case of English v. Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd. Which came to light in the year 1937 and its details can be found in the parliamentary archives of the United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions. Would your Excellency benefit from a brief summary of the said case? [Let Lordship reply with a yes] The case involved Mr. English, who was under the employment of Wilson & Clyde Co. Ltd. The appellant in this case lost his life in the pro cess of repairing an airway and naturally his death was deemed as being a result of his own negligence by his employers. Mr. English’s family contested this claim of the employer’s and later on it was nullified by the distinguished House of Lords, who stated that a negligence on part of the employee is to be the employer’s responsibility. The binding contract between the employee and the employer is such that it holds the latter liable for the former’