A 3-year-old child was walking on the pavement next to a busy road with her mother. Unfortunately, the mother was not holding the child's hand and was distracted by her mobile phone. Suddenly, the child ran into the road and was hit by a car driven by the defendant. The child suffered a broken leg. The court concluded that the driver had been exceeding the speed limit on the road where the accident occurred. Had he not been speeding, the driver would have been able to stop in time and avoid hitting the child.
In a claim against the driver by the child, which statement is correct?
A 3-year-old child was walking on the pavement next to a busy road with her mother. Unfortunately, the mother was not holding the child's hand and was distracted by her mobile phone. Suddenly, the child ran into the road and was hit by a car driven by the defendant. The child suffered a broken leg. The court concluded that the driver had been exceeding the speed limit on the road where the accident occurred. Had he not been speeding, the driver would have been able to stop in time and avoid hitting the child.
In a claim against the driver by the child, which statement is correct?
The driver may seek a contribution from the child's mother towards any damages he is ordered to pay to the child.
(B) The driver can ask the child's mother for contribution. The mother has a duty of care towards the child, but she seems to have failed to take reasonable care for the child's safety.
The mother's negligence has caused the child's injury. Similarly, the driver also has a duty of care towards the child, but he has breached it by driving over the speed limit. The driver's negligence has also caused the child's injury. The child has suffered an indivisible injury caused by both the mother and the driver. Therefore, both the mother and the driver are liable to the child for the same damage. In this situation, the driver can recover a contribution from the mother to pay for any damages he is ordered to pay.
(A) is incorrect. The defence of contributory negligence applies when the claimant fails to take reasonable care for their own safety. Since the claimant, in this case, is the child, the defence of contributory negligence cannot be applied against the child's mother.
(C) is incorrect. The driver has failed to meet the reasonable standard of care, and had he not breached his duty, the child would not have been injured. Therefore, a claim against the driver is possible.
(D) is incorrect. Both the mother and the driver caused the child's injury. Hence, a claim against the driver is possible, as explained earlier.
(E) is incorrect. The driver is not obligated to avoid causing injury absolutely. The driver has a duty to take reasonable care to prevent harm.