Question

Imogen regularly took her car to be serviced at her local garage, Prescotts. On the four previous occasions she had taken her car to the garage, before handing her car over, Imogen had always been required to read and sign a contractual document which contained the following statement in bold red type:

‘Prescotts accepts no responsibility for any consequential loss or injury sustained as a result of any work carried out by the company, whether as a result of negligence or otherwise.’

On the most recent occasion she visited the garage, Imogen was not asked to sign the usual document. She was, however, given a receipt for the car, which she accepted without reading. Prescotts usual business terms were printed on the back of the receipt, including the statement above.

On driving the car home after its service, Imogen was severely injured when the car suddenly burst into flames. It subsequently emerged that the fire had been the result of the negligent work by one of Prescotts mechanics. Prescotts has accepted that its mechanic was negligent but denies any liability for Imogen’s injuries, relying on the exclusion clause above.

Advise Imogen

(a)

Whether the exclusion clause was incorporated into his contract with Prescotts Ltd;

(b)

The possible impact of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 regarding any claim Imogen might make against Prescotts in relation to her injuries.

Total

how do i do this q for 25 marks pls?

Answer 1

A wrongful act, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another is called Tort. All negligence cases and intentional wrongs which result in harm can be Tort.An action for negligence requires the plaintiff (Mogen)) to prove that the defendant (Prescotts)breached a duty of care owed to them and that this breach was the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries or losses.

Here The owner took reasonable care to prevent an injury, such as posting warnings signs In this case. The receipts contains a liability waiver on the back of it, but Mogen did not read it. Here The owner took reasonable care to prevent an injury, a posting warnings signs in ticket .

Prescotts have a duty to protect people against dangerous conditions , but also that if they fail to do so, then an injured party may be able to bring a claim against them. In such cases, it may be possible for them to recover damages for any injuries sustained.

But Prescott is Legally Responsible only when a person typically has to prove that the defendant was negligent. This requires proof that:

1.)           The Defendent owed the person a duty to protect or warn against dangerous conditions;

2.)           The defendent beached this duty; and

3.)           An injury occurred as a result of the defedent’s breach

Following defenses that an opposing party (Prescott) is able to assert Mogen’s claim. Defenses are

1)            Comparative negligence or contributory negligence;

2)            Assumption of risk;

3)            Failure to prove the elements of a negligence case;

4)            The owner took reasonable care to prevent an injury, such as posting warnings signs

5)            A lack of fault defense. For example, a reasonable person(Mogen) is able to recognize the danger and as such, would have chosen a safer garage.

So Mogen will not receive claim.