Question

SHAH ALAM, 27 May: The High Court here today found a superstore proprietor liable for an incident that resulted in a company executive becoming paralysed below the waist. Judge Wong Ken Kheong also held Mydin Mohamed Holdings Bhd responsible for causing emotional trauma to the victim's wife although she escaped with slight injuries. "I find the plaintiffs have proven their case on the balance of probabilities and the defendant is 100% liable for the incident," the judge said in his oral ruling this evening. Wong said he would determine the quantum of damages for Asri Ismail and Salila Abdul Kadir on July 18. Asri, who was driving a car with Salila in the front passenger seat, was looking for a parking lot at the Mydin outlet in Subang Jaya on Nov 15, 2016 when the incident happened. In their statement of claim, they said a heavy concrete slab fell on the car. Asri, 55, sustained serious injuries, including to his spinal cord, while Salila, 51, was traumatised. The couple, represented by S Preakash and B Sachinanthan, said the defendant was negligent in their failure to ensure their premises were safe for visitors and shoppers. They filed a RM8 million claim in September 2017 for loss of income as a result of Asri's physical disability and the need for constant nursing care. Wong also dismissed a counter-claim by Mydin against the couple, stating that the company did not adduce sufficient evidence to prove its contention. Mydin had said the couple were not alert to prevent the accident and the mishap was an act of God. Retrieved from freemalaysiatoday.com.my in 2019 Based on the newspaper article mentioned, explain in details the requirements of negligence and contributory negligence under the law of Tort. In the course of your answer, discuss the article and state your opinion whether justice has been served in above situation. Support your answer with decided cases (if any).

Answer 1

Law of Tort indicates a which is wrong according to civil wrong, or wrongful act, whether intentional or non-intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another. Torts law defined all negligence cases as well as intentional wrongs which result in harm. A doctrine of common law says that if a person was injured in part due to his/her own negligence (his/her negligence "contributed" to the accident), the injured party would not be entitled to collect any damages (money) from another party who supposedly caused the accident. It sounds simple, but what are one's duty of care obligations and what constitutes 'reasonable care and skill'? There are elements that a plaintiff (the injured party) must prove in order to make a negligence claim. These are duty of care, breach and causation. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. In some common law jurisdictions, contributory negligence is a defense to a tort certain claim based on negligence. If it is available, the defense completely bars plaintiffs from any recovery if they contribute to their own injury through their own negligence. tort, in common law jurisdiction, is a civil wrongthat causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits a tortious act. It can include the intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, financial losses, injuries, invasion of privacy, and many other things.

Tort law, is suitable where the purpose of a legal act is to obtain a private civil remedy such as damages, may be sometimes compared to criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state government. Tort law may also be comparing with contract law, which also provides a civil remedy after breach of duty, but the contractual obligation is one chosen by the parties, the obligation in both tort and crime is imposed by the state. In both the situation the contract and tort, successful claimants must show that they have faced loss or harm as a direct result of the breach of duty.

Now we totally under what this law is all about but in this case Its not Asri Ismail and Salila Abdul Kadir fault. Parking lot of superstore- Mydin outlet is a responsibility of store owner because all the customers coming to their place is their responsibility because of the their mistakes the couple is suffering emotional, financially and physically as well. They should at least bear their hospital and care cost. So the Mydin decision is not at all ethical.