On December 12, 2012, at approximately 5:40 p.m., my client, Ms. J. Smith, was involved in a car accident, which caused her to be absent from work since the accident due to a broken back and several major surgeries. The accident was caused by the negligence of your client, Mr. J. Sherwood, who, according to Ms. Smith, was driving while “texting on his phone,” which caused him to crash into her car because he did not Didn't spot him at the red lights. In the previous letter I sent, I outlined the liability requirements for the tort of negligence in this matter. I will now apply these criteria to the case in question. Firstly, there is evidence that the offender, Mr Sherwood, owed my client a duty of care, which he breached. The offender should have driven reasonably, as he is an ordinary person carrying out a task and driving. The first part of testing whether a duty of care is owed is foreseeability, and clearly it was foreseeable that such an accident would occur, as driving while using a cell phone would be considered reckless or dangerous driving, as the person's ability to drive would be reduced, because they would not be focused on the task, which in this case would lead to a car accident and serious damage to a person, physical and mental, including the car itself. The second factor is proximity. , which, as explained previously, means how close or close the event (timing), space and relationship were. There is no relationship between Mrs. Smith and Mr. Sherwood, as they were two ordinary people driving on a road. However, the act of hitting Ms. Smith's car was close in time and space because it was immediate, as was the damage caused by the event. This increases the fact that Mr Sherwood owes a duty of care to my client and has b...... middle of paper ...... the costs of these must be included, as well as the orders, the physiotherapy, etc. on the other hand, non-pecuniary losses concentrate on the loss of future income and are higher. Firstly, the costs of repairing the car would be around £350. The fact that Ms. Smith was away from work for such a long period, approximately 6 months, and is expected to be away from work for a further 6 months, results in an increase in the amount of compensation. My client was earning £20,000 a year, that's what she's going to lose. This amount added to the amount owed for physical damage equates to £74,000. My client is likely to recover from this accident and will also be able to carry out her job as a teacher, which means that there is currently no further future loss that would be caused by this accident. Below I have included a screenshot of the website where I come to this conclusion.