On April 17, 1961, 1,400 Cuban exiles launched what became a botched invasion at the Bay of Pigs on the South coast of Cuba. The Bay of Pigs began when a CIA-financed and trained group of Cuban refugees in Cuba and attempted to topple the communist government of Fidel Castro. The attack was an utter failure. Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan. The failure at the Bay of Pigs has received considerably less attention and study than the successfully completed, in the perspective of United States policy, Cuban missile crisis. The Bay of Pigs fiasco however was an invaluable lesson for President John F. Kennedy. It led him to make basic changes in his selection of advisors, his setup of procedures for dealing for dealing with decision-making, and his formation of policy. The lessons the President learned aided him in avoiding similar pitfalls and errors during the missile crisis. It revealed to him that he could not give his complete trust to the experts.
here a duty of care? In this case, yes, Geoff had a duty of care to other road users, and Paul was a road user, who was neglected by Geoff. Lastly, has the duty of care been breached? In this scenario it has been, Geoff lost focus of the road when he decided to focus on the change of the CD. As these three legal issues are satisfied, Paul can raise a negligence claim against Geoff.
Paul v Beth
Paul can also raise a claim against Beth as she was the reason why Geoff swerved and hit him. As a road user, Beth had a duty of care not only for Geoff, but Paul as well, and by speeding, she not only put herself in danger but caused Geoff to injure Paul. As in Stovin v Wise case, Beth could be held accountable for the incident between Paul and Geoff, however, she didn’t cause damage or injury to Geoff, therefore she can’t be sued. Beth could also argue that it was Geoff’s fault as he wasn’t paying attention to the road, and she isn’t the one to be sued for Paul’s losses, damages and injuries. Based on these facts, there wouldn’t be a claim if Paul tried to sue Beth, as there weren’t any damages that she caused to him directly. Therefore, the is no possible claim between Paul and Beth. There are three main legal issues that must be met when looking at a negligence claim. First, has the claimant suffered any damage or loss? In this case yes, but Beth wasn’t the direct cause of it. Secondly, is there a duty of care? In this case yes, Beth, as a road user has duty of care towards other road users and Paul was a road user. Lastly, has the duty of care been breached? In this case, yes, as Beth was driving recklessly, but she has not caused damage to Paul directly. As not all of the legal issues are satisfied, Paul cannot sue Beth, therefore there is no claim.
Geoff v Beth
Another claim that could arise is between Geoff and Beth. As Beth is the reason why Geoff hit Paul, he can sue Beth, so he doesn’t have to pay for the injuries that he caused because it wasn’t entirely his fault. However, as in Perl v Camden LBC , it was Geoff who could’ve avoided hitting Paul if he paid attention to the road. Beth could argue that if Geoff wasn’t distracted by the CD, he would have acknowledged her earlier, meaning he would have not had to swerve sharply, preventing not only collision with Beth but also Paul. Therefore, by looking at these facts and the defence argument, it would be likely that this claim would not be successful. There are three main legal issues that must be met when looking at a negligence claim. Firstly, has the claimant suffered any damage or loss? In this case, no, there was no damage or loss that Geoff suffered. Secondly, is there a duty of care? In this case yes, as Beth was a road user, she had duty of care towards Geoff. And lastly, has the duty of care been breached? In this case, yes, the duty of care has been breached as Bet
