Question 1
In the case of Lance and Cadella v Parramatta Council there is a breach of rights of Lance in regard to
Parramatta Council or in other words, breach of the law of tort. A tort is a civil wrong in common law
jurisdictions which causes someone to suffer loss or damage which results in legal liability for the
person who commits tortious action. The plaintiff is the person who initiates the case and the
person who is harmed or has suffered pecuniary loss. The defendant is the party who inflicts injury
and bears the liability is known as tortfeasor. Tort law helps the victim to get the compensation for
the harm suffered, transfer the cost to tortfeasor and mainly discourages careless, risky and
injurious behaviour in the…show more content… He collided with a chain strung by the Parramatta Council and suffered serious injuries. He
was unaware about the chain strung on the way as few days ago he rode through the same passage
and there was no chain strung by the council that time. The action of tort does not depend on the
consent of parties in relation to the particular law suit. Action of tort requires the establishment of
some of the points: The plaintiff (in this case Lance and Cadella) has to establish that the defendant
was doing their legal duty; the defendant (Parramatta Council) breached the legal duty by acting in a
particular manner and the injury suffered is a direct result of the breach.
Torts may be classified into several ways, mainly classified in intentional and unintentional torts. In
the case of Lance and Cadella v Parramatta Council, there was a case of unintentional tort. Amongst
the unintentional torts, Lance and Cadella should take up the action of negligence against the
council. Even though Lance and his wife were riding fast on the route but they were acting in the
same way as they did few days ago. Then, there were no chain strung on the route. Putting on the
chain without informing and not putting on the notice to create awareness, the council may be…show more content… The council’s negligence leading to failure to inform the cyclists about the changes
held the council responsible for the damages done to Lance and Cadella. The circumstances created
by the Parramatta council leaded the private lives of Lance and Cadella into a risky environment to
which they fell prey and suffered injuries. They should sue the council the Parramatta Council for
payment of damages and for the compensation.
The action to be brought up by the plaintiff (Lance and Cadella) in the case should be of negligence
against the defendant (Parramatta Council). The negligence showed by the council also sheds light
on the lack of consideration shown for the public. The council did not even bother to paint the chain
with a different colour to make it noticeable. The council could have used any of the methods to
create awareness rather than just putting up the chain on the path. There were no actions taken by
the council to stop or prevent the possible accident on the path. There were no clear signs put by
the council to inform the riders. Lance and Cadella should sue the Parramatta Council under the
action of negligence and should claim for compensation and payment of damages from the