Tort Law Sky Airlines
Question :
An airplane belonging to Sky Airlines Ltd crash-landed into the terminal building at Queen’s airport and burst into flames. The aeroplane, which was carrying the players of the National football team, coaches, football association officials, journalists and fans, was returning to England after a FIFA World Cup tournament. It appears that the plane had missed its scheduled turn around Maintenance because the demand for flights had been exceptionally high during that period.
Answer :
Issue
Does the Sky Airlines Ltd committed negligence for which it has to compensate Edwin and Damian?
Rule
If the plaintiff can prove that he has faced damages or legal injury because of the negligence of the defendant and such damages is not of remote nature, then plaintiff can claim compensation from the defendant for the loss or damages he has suffered.
Application
For negligence, it is not necessary that there shall be a binding contract between the plaintiff and defendant (Donoghue v Stevenson, 1932) . If the victim/plaintiff can prove that there is existence of a duty in favour of the defendant; the defendant has failed to perform his duty and because of such breach of duty by the defendant the injury or loss has been occurred to the plaintiff; then it should be concluded that the defendant is in negligence (Donoghue v Stevenson, 1932) . It should be noted that if there is no legal damage, then the plaintiff cannot claim damages (Johnston v. Nei International Combustion Ltd., 2007) . Moreover it has been settled that the resulting damage should not be too remote.
In the present case, it is proved the aeroplane had missed its scheduled turn around Maintenance. It cannot be the ground for the defendant that because of demand it could not send the airline for maintenance. Missing the scheduled maintenance is the breach of duty of the plaintiff. There is direct linkage between such breach of duty and damage occurred to the plaintiff. The injury or the damage occurred to Edwin was legal damage. Further, the damage occurred to Edwin was not remote in nature as the defendant should have been aware that its negligence can cause the severe health damage which would cause the loss of job for Edwin. Thus defendant has committed negligence and the damages occurred to plaintiff was not remote in nature. On the other hand, the damages occurred to Damian was of remote nature and such damage is not of proximity cause. The damage occurred to Damian was in no way could be foreseen by defendant.
Conclusion
Skyline Airlines Ltd has committed negligence. Thus, Skyline Airline Ltd is bound to compensate Edwin for his earning and loss of earnings because of the injuries sustained by him. On the other hand, the damage occurred to Damian was of remote in nature. So, Skyline Airlines Ltd is not bound to compensate Damian.
