Negligence is an attribute that must be considered along with other torts due to its far-reaching impacts. Many people experience such cases but are unaware of what to do when they experience such either personally or professionally. However, the tort has been considered an integral part of the system that allows one to understand the importance of dealing with harm as part of determining the best ways of reducing harm (Velasco, 2015). The burden of precautions that arises in such cases only creates different reasons why people need to continue developing ways of addressing the issues affecting the individual as a whole. Importantly, people have to understand the need to establish the required prima facie case for negligence to be considered, an attribute I learned after going through similar issues from a professional platform. The role of the torts is to provide a way forward necessary to boost the changes that emanate from understanding the actual damages caused and learning the best law to cite when dealing with the intended changes across the community. Ascertaining its existence is the critical bit in such a condition.
Negligence implies the failure brought on a reasonable person who does not do what is required based on the circumstances (Velasco, 2015). Furthermore, negligence can be divided into different components, whereby four are commonly cited as the best for consideration while making such an accusation. The four are duty, breach, causation, and damages. In my case, an essential way of evaluating the issue at hand was the duty of care. The violation of a promise considered under a common principle can be defined as an essential aspect that comes when people understand their roles and refuse to act accordingly (Velasco, 2015). The impact of such an attribute should be considered based on individual services as well as the foreseeable demands as part of working towards the right form of assistance.
My story started when I went to a shop to purchase a car. The dealer was the cheapest I could get since I needed a car that could fit into my budget. Despite being cautioned against such a purchase within the expected frameworks, I did not think anything would happen if I chose a dealership yard within a well-known area. The problem with second-hand cars is that they have different faults or issues that could be unseen initially, but quite a setback once the problem is activated. I went on as usual and did not attempt to ask for a second opinion from anyone. A week after the purchase, I realized that the car needed so many changes and I had no idea what the problem was. After a few days, I returned to the dealer and he brought out a document that had my signature affirming that the car was in good condition. I took the dealer’s evaluation and did not look for outside assistance to affirm whether the car was faulty or not.
Nonetheless, I went on to sue him for negligence as he had breached his duty of care. For a start, he had tweaked the mileage to make the car look better but the problem was that due to this, the servicing was done late and the manufacturer could not be blamed for such an issue. Furthermore, the major problems noted needed new spare parts or else the car would stall and remain immobile in my backyard. The dealer was not willing to relent on the sale or admit his mistakes, but I ensured that he knew the law could always find him and make him pay. I understood the reason I was asked to be cautious and the need to affirm that everything is okay even if it means getting advice from a third party. The dealer refunded my money and was penalized for the negligence. He was further investigated to ensure that no one else was conned.
The duty of care should be considered as the most important aspect that makes it easier to address the various concerns that arise when defining changes across the business field. Understanding its influence can lead to an understanding of the changing environments as defined and determined by the legal demands.
References
Greene, B. (2013). Course Notes: Tort Law. New York: Routledge.
Velasco, J. (2015). A defense of the corporate law duty of care. Journal of Corporation Law, 40(3), 647-703.
