Euthanasia, also called mercy killing, is an act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from painful and incurable disease or incapacitating physical disorder or allowing them to die by withholding treatment or withdrawing artificial life support measures. Because there is no specific provision for it in most legal systems, it is usually regarded as either suicide or murder. There are two types of euthanasia: active and passive euthanasia. In active euthanasia a person directly and deliberately causes the patient`s death. In passive they don’t directly take the patient`s life, they just allow them to die. Some pro-euthanasia advocates have gone further, arguing that respect for people`s rights to autonomy and self-determination means competent adults have a right to die at a time of their choosing, and that the state has no right to prevent them from doing so. I believe that life is given by God, and only God should decide when to end it.
This report will explore potential claims that can arise after road accident, as well as any arguable defences that can come up. The incident involves Paul, who was cycling home without a cycle helmet, Geoff who was driving the same way but was distracted as he was changing the CD, and Beth who was speeding and was partially on the wrong side of the road. When Geoff looked up, he saw Beth’s car and swerved in order to avoid collision. As Geoff swerved to the left sharply, he hit Paul, knocking him off his bike, causing him to fall heavily, cutting open his head and injuring his collar bone. Geoff did not suffer any injuries or damages. After few minutes, Paul, not realising that he broke his collar bone, got back on his bike which has not been seriously damaged and continued his journey. When he tried to apply his brakes at a junction a mile down the road, the pain in his shoulder was so intense that he didn’t manage to stop his bike, causing him to swerve to avoid over-shooting the junction, which caused him to collide with a post box, badly injuring his leg as a result.
Every road user has a duty of care to other users, and by looking at the fact of the accident, it can be seen that there are three potential claims that can arise. Paul v Geoff, Paul v Beth, and Geoff v Beth. However, there are many facts that can cause claims to be thrown out.
Paul v Geoff
Paul can sue Geoff for his injuries and damages. As Geoff was a road user, and had duty of care towards others, including Paul, it was his responsibility not only to avoid colliding with Beth, but also to avoid hitting Paul. In Donoghue v Stevenson, Lord Atkins established the neighbour principle, stating that a person owns a duty of care to anyone they could foresee might be affected by their actions . Geoff can be sued for negligence, as he neglected Paul, as a road user when he hit him, causing injuries and damage to his bike. However, as the injuries were not declared after Geoff hit Paul, Geoff could argue that the injuries that Paul sustained, was not his fault and the injuries occurred when Paul collided with the post box on the side of the road. As Paul has no proof of the injuries before and after any of the incidents, the injuries and damages could be dismissed from the claim, meaning that there are no proven damages, which means that the case could be thrown out as Paul can only claim for his losses, including injuries and property damages. Another defence could be that Geoff is not responsible for the injuries, as Paul wasn’t wearing a cycling helmet. However, as in the case of Capps v Miller, it was proven that the claimant didn’t have anything to do with the injuries, as wearing the helmet only decreased the injuries by 15% at most , meaning that this defence would be invalid. This claim could possibly arise, as Geoff, who was driving, and not paying attention to the road, putting other road users at risk. There are three main legal issues that must be met when looking at a negligence claim. First is the damage or loss. In this case, Paul has suffered injuries and his bik
