TheFlyisdead v. ‘The Errant Drivers of the Republic’
Absolute shock and horror – Disbelief - Shattered "ideals’ from principles taught at the driving school - Action by plaintiff to recover sanity and regain the bountiful pleasures of driving - quantum of damages - whether intangible damages can be calculated in tangible terms - Whether practicality of the law can ever be extended to cover cases of emotional distress and hardship caused as a result of long term driving on the roads
Facts
The plaintiff is a 22-year-old p-plate driver. The defendant, conveniently termed "The Errant Drivers of the Republic", represents every single establishment that 1) drives like a tyrant; 2) never giving way to other drivers; 3) never flashing their signal lights early when switching lanes 4) using vulgar language and rude and disturbing gestures at other p-plate drivers; 5) stealing other drivers parking lot right under their nose and even having the cheek to smile at the supposed victim; 6) insidiously enforces conformity on all other drivers by forcing them to either give in or be taken advantage of.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for a lack of consideration to the inexperience of the p-plate driver and subsequent poor performance in driving due to the emotional distress that he suffered. As a student back in the driving school, the plaintiff had a very clear idea of how he wanted to drive with consideration and be a good and courteous driver without losing his temper and giving way to other drivers at every opportunity given in the hope that other drivers would also have similar intentions and put it into practice making driving a pleasure at all times.
As he entered the real world of driving, that 'clear idea' eventually became vague and confusing. The plaintiff contended that the defendant is liable for his perpetual angst; his petulantly lackadaisical attitude towards driving; and his recent loss of inspiration to drive. The plaintiff further submitted that he is suffering sleepless nights and lack of energy during the day due to the reoccurring nightmares of the errant drivers pursing him down the ECP/PIE/CTE.
The plaintiff sought damages for emotional distress and hardship caused as a result of the sleepless nights and lack of energy for other supposed activities that takes place at night. The Plaintiff is also claiming for the ‘lost ideals’ he once had for driving.
The trial judge found in favour of the defendants and dismissed the plaintiff's claims. It was against this decision that the plaintiff appealed to the High Court.
Held, dismissing the appeal:
1) The court is of the opinion that the errant driver of the republic is good for everyone. It teaches every individual to fend for themselves on the road and not let other drivers take advantage of each other. For the plaintiff to bring an action against the defendant is going against the very nature of the reality of the road world.
2) The defendant in this case is a ill-defined one. It is unrealistic and impractical to allow the plaintiff to claim damages according to the definition of "the errant drivers of the republic" as set out in the Facts section. It is also against public policy, as it would be opening a legal floodgate of claims to which there would be no end, because so many idealistic individuals end up being utterly disappointed by this omniscient defendant. The plaintiff should not be given special treatment.
3) Even if such a claim is allowed, there is no way to calculate something as intangible as emotional distress and lost ideals in monetary terms.
4) It is not just highly unlikely, but downright impossible, for the law to be extended to cover damages in these areas. See floodgate argument in (2).
**DISCLAIMER: This is entirely a work of fiction written by an amateur law student to be and some legal terms may be confused with the actual terms used by the legal courts.The writer is not liable to any misrepresentation in the above entry. **
Facts
The plaintiff is a 22-year-old p-plate driver. The defendant, conveniently termed "The Errant Drivers of the Republic", represents every single establishment that 1) drives like a tyrant; 2) never giving way to other drivers; 3) never flashing their signal lights early when switching lanes 4) using vulgar language and rude and disturbing gestures at other p-plate drivers; 5) stealing other drivers parking lot right under their nose and even having the cheek to smile at the supposed victim; 6) insidiously enforces conformity on all other drivers by forcing them to either give in or be taken advantage of.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for a lack of consideration to the inexperience of the p-plate driver and subsequent poor performance in driving due to the emotional distress that he suffered. As a student back in the driving school, the plaintiff had a very clear idea of how he wanted to drive with consideration and be a good and courteous driver without losing his temper and giving way to other drivers at every opportunity given in the hope that other drivers would also have similar intentions and put it into practice making driving a pleasure at all times.
As he entered the real world of driving, that 'clear idea' eventually became vague and confusing. The plaintiff contended that the defendant is liable for his perpetual angst; his petulantly lackadaisical attitude towards driving; and his recent loss of inspiration to drive. The plaintiff further submitted that he is suffering sleepless nights and lack of energy during the day due to the reoccurring nightmares of the errant drivers pursing him down the ECP/PIE/CTE.
The plaintiff sought damages for emotional distress and hardship caused as a result of the sleepless nights and lack of energy for other supposed activities that takes place at night. The Plaintiff is also claiming for the ‘lost ideals’ he once had for driving.
The trial judge found in favour of the defendants and dismissed the plaintiff's claims. It was against this decision that the plaintiff appealed to the High Court.
Held, dismissing the appeal:
1) The court is of the opinion that the errant driver of the republic is good for everyone. It teaches every individual to fend for themselves on the road and not let other drivers take advantage of each other. For the plaintiff to bring an action against the defendant is going against the very nature of the reality of the road world.
2) The defendant in this case is a ill-defined one. It is unrealistic and impractical to allow the plaintiff to claim damages according to the definition of "the errant drivers of the republic" as set out in the Facts section. It is also against public policy, as it would be opening a legal floodgate of claims to which there would be no end, because so many idealistic individuals end up being utterly disappointed by this omniscient defendant. The plaintiff should not be given special treatment.
3) Even if such a claim is allowed, there is no way to calculate something as intangible as emotional distress and lost ideals in monetary terms.
4) It is not just highly unlikely, but downright impossible, for the law to be extended to cover damages in these areas. See floodgate argument in (2).
**DISCLAIMER: This is entirely a work of fiction written by an amateur law student to be and some legal terms may be confused with the actual terms used by the legal courts.The writer is not liable to any misrepresentation in the above entry. **
posted by theflyisneverdead at 11/12/2005 12:27:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home