Factory job Essay Example for Free

Factory job Essay I am seriously going to explode one day. That Mr Birling is being totally out of order, he pays us girls nothing more than 20 shillings a day and that cant keep me alive for much longer. I have spoken to the girls and they agree with me that we should go on strike. That will make him think about the wages he gives the girls and me. I would rather quit but that would show the wrong side of me I am not a quitter, I am a fighter. I should of taken the job in the bakery but no I had to choose the factory job which could have been good and well paid but no they lied to me about the wages. Anyway I saw my Nan today, she is really ill I need the extra money for her medicine but if you ask me I think she will be going soon. I wish I could see my mum but she is in Yorkshire. I could not stay there because there was no work. There was work but I would never stoop that low. My sister got into that kind of work and she got pregnant out of that sort of business. This all the countrys fault I had to move here because of the lack of jobs in Yorkshire its ridiculous. The strike will still go on. Talk soon, thank you for listening. I am sacked now, looks like I need to starve my self once again all because I wanted more money to actually stay alive, hence I am starving myself now. Most of the girls got their jobs back and I loose mine that fair. Mr Birling has to learn that it is not business all the time, he has to think about other peoples lives that are not rich. I told him that and he obviously did not understand about higher and lower class, all he concentrates on is higher class and spends money like a fire in a wood. I better look for a job soon other wise I will die like my Nan did poor and helpless. I am living in my Nan house but I will probably not stay here that long because she has probably given the house to sally her friend on the street. Thank you for listening bye. I am so happy, I went to a interview last week with Milwards and I have a job now and its good pay and I can help sewing the dresses which is my life long dream. I have not got the house any more, Sally and Frederick her boyfriend live there now and I live in a run down hovel and nothing in it. I have no money and I have changed my name to Sarah so I can get a job because I got sacked and you what Mr Birling is like, he knows everyone. I am gradually getting richer but not much, I have got 40 shillings and I need to save that so I cant eat again. Hopefully this job will be successful and its nearly Christmas bonus but I wont get my hopes up. I have realised that my behaviour at Mr Birlings factory was bad but I was desperate and I need the money. I need to be really polite in this shop because lots of posh and higher class shop here and like I said I dont want to work on the street. Thank you for listening. I got sacked once again. I have not been a pain but I did make a funny look when Miss Birling was showing her dress to mum. Even her mum didnt like the dress, you could tell by her face. I laughed as well but that was because I tripped other the stall. I think she complained about me and said to Samantha the boss to sack me. The Higher class always gets their way and bosses always want money. Thank you for listening. It has come to the worse now. I am getting money but I hate sleeping with scummy old men who smell of beer and sometimes dont even pay you for your time. I really did not want to become a slut and sleep around but I am and I had to change my name again. My name is Daisy Renton now. I have lost two stone. I am probably going to die one day and probably poor, helpless and with no family by my side. I might go back to Yorkshire but I have myself into a business. I am going out with Gerald. He was a customer but he likes talking to me and he bought me food recently and I that was touching. I met him in the palace bar. I was there for business and business is good there because all the rich people are there and have no lady of there own because they are so ugly. Gerald is so sweet. Talk soon. I am really depressed and my live is over now because Gerald has left me he gave me some money but I love Gerald I need him he kept me away from trouble. A man recently beat me up and Gerald looked after me. He is a star and he always will be. The money has been going down the drain I need more money, I might need to do extra nights and double shifts a night. Old men are the worst they are so old and horrible. I need a good job because I have not got a enough money for the place I am renting. I will talk to you soon bye.

Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein Essays -- essays research papers

Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein Responsibility is the key to experimentation, those lacking the maturity fail. In Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, Victor Frankenstein experiments in creating life. However creating a monster, the reader finds out that Victor is not mature enough to handle the responsibility of his actions. Even though Victor Frankenstein is the creator/father of the monster, he has characteristics of a child and the monster has the maturity of an adult. When Henry Clerval arrives at Frankenstein’s door after his experimenting, he experiences Victor’s child-like actions. As Victor explains, â€Å"I was unable to remain for a single instant in the same place; I jumped over the chairs, clapped my hands, and laughed aloud.†(36) This shows the sheer giddiness of Victor after being isolated from friends and family for months working on his experiments. Victor was immature when handling the isolation so he bottled up emotions which were let loose when the sight of his friend arrived. Frankenstein even mentions that his actions are child-like when he enters his home. â€Å"I threw the door open forcibly, as children are accustomed to do when they expect a spectre to stand in waiting for them on the other side.†(37) Like a child does, victor could not control his feelings and thus acted out in an irregular manner for an adult. After Frankenstein creates the monster, his actions, also became that of a scared child. â€Å"One hand was stretched out, seemingly to detain me, but I escaped, ...

Patterns in Strategy Formation Essay

A critical summary of the article â€Å"Patterns in strategy formation† written by Henry Mintzberg, published in Journal Management Science Vol. 24, No. 9, (1978) A short overview The paper,†Patterns in strategy formation†, outlines a new kind of description to the much misunderstood process of strategy formation in organizations. After giving a short summary of the theme, the author, Henry Mintzberg, describes the term â€Å"strategy† and shows how the definition leads to the choice of a research methodology. Following this, he details the four steps of research methodology. With to completed, major studies about two organizations (Volkswagenwerk and the United States government in Vietnam) Mintzberg analyzes three central themes. The first is that strategy formation can be viewed as the interplay between a dynamic environment and bureaucratic momentum, with leadership mediating between the two. Second, that strategy formation over periods of time appears to follow distinct regularities, for example life cycles or change-continuity cycles within life cycle. And third the study of the interplay between intended and realized strategies may be central to the strategy formation process. Definition of strategy and the research methodology In the first section of the paper, Mintzberg describes the term †strategy†. Strategy is generally defined, whether in game, military or management theory, as a deliberate, conscious set of guidelines that determines decisions into the future. In common terminology, a strategy is a plan. Mintzberg illustrates that defining strategy as a plan is not sufficient, because if strategies can be intended, surely they can also be realized. A definition that encompasses the resulting behavior is therefore required. The author proposes to define strategy in general as a pattern in a stream of decisions. To clarify this definition of strategy, he introduces a few illustrations. For example, when Picasso painted blue for a time, that was a strategy †Blue Strategy†. This definition of strategy necessitated the analysis of decision streams in a organizations over time periods to detect the development and breakdown of patterns. Therefore Mintzberg subdivided the analysis of the studies into four central steps. 1st step: Collection of basic data. 2nd step: Inference of strategies and periods of change. 3rd step: Intensive analysis of periods of change. 4th step: Theoretical analysis. After giving a brief review of the periods of strategy in two organizations, using the terminology of the research, the author comes to the core of the paper, which is the presentation of some theoretical conclusions about strategy formation. Strategy formation as the interplay of environment, leadership and bureaucracy Mintzberg outlines strategy formation in most organizations as the interplay of three basic forces revolving around the dynamic environment that changes continuously but irregularly, organizational management or bureaucracy that attempts to stabilize the actions of the organizations whilst operating in the dynamic environment, and leadership of the organizations whose role is to mediate between the two forces. From this point of departure, the author provides a definition of strategy and of strategic change. †Strategy can then be viewed as the set of consistent behaviors by which the organization establishes for a time its place in its environment, and strategic change can be viewed as the organization’s response to environmental change, constrained by the momentum of the bureaucracy and accelerated or dampened by the leadership†. Mintzberg illustrates, that the two organizations (Volkswagenwerk and U.S. government in Vietnam) are stories of how bureaucratic momentum constrains and leadership dampens strategic change. In 1965, for example, when the United States government escalated the Vietnam war in a way that made the escalation inevitable, the new leadership, named Johnson, dampened the strategic change, under the environmental and bureaucratic pressures. Also in 1960, when action was needed in the face of an increasingly changed environment, the central leadership of Volkswagenwerk was not forthcoming. Patterns of strategic change According to Mintzberg, patterns of strategic change are never steady, but rather irregular and ad hoc, with a complex intermingling or periods of change, continuity. Even so, he recognizes some patterns in strategy formation that may enable organizations to understand better their strategic situations. The first pattern is the life cycle of an overall strategy, based on four phases: conception, elaboration, decay and death. The author illustrates that the case of Vietnam represents the classic strategic life cycle. The second pattern is the presence of periodic waves of change and continuity within the life cycle. This second pattern suggests that strategies do not commonly change incrementally. Rather, change takes place in spurts, each followed by a period of stability. Mintzberg notes, that nowhere is the change-continuity cycle better demonstrated than in the stepwise escalation of the Vietnam metastrategy. According to the author, the reason for the periods of change and continuity is that human do not react to phenomena continuously, but rather in discreet steps, when changes are large enough to be perceived. In a similar manner, strategic decision processes in organizations are not continuous, but irregular. Based on both studies, Mintzberg notes, that there are dangers in incremental changes. He argues that strategy-makers seem prepared to assume positions in incremental steps that they would never begin to entertain in global ones. On the other hand, global change is very difficult to conceive and execute successfully. According to the author, this is perhaps the strategy-maker’s greatest dilemma. The danger of incremental changes versus the difficulty of global changes. Interplay between intended and realized strategies The author identifies two kinds of strategies: intended and realized. He illustrates, that these two can be combined in three ways: Intended strategies that get realized, which are called deliberate strategies (e.g. the Volkswagen strategy of 1948 to 1958). Intended strategies that do not get realized, which are called unrealized strategies (e.g. Kennedy’s intended strategy of 1961 of advising the Vietnamese). Realized strategies that were never intended, which are called emergent strategies (e.g. the U.S. strategy of finding itself in a fighting instead of advising role). Furthermore, Mintzberg argues that it is possible to find a number of other relationships between intended and realized strategies, such as intended strategies that, as they get realized, change their form and become emergent; emergent strategies that get formalized as deliberate ones; or intended strategies that get overrealized. This view challenges the tenets of planning theory, which postulates that the strategy-maker formulates from on high while the subordinates implement lower down. Mintzberg argues that this dichotomy between strategy formulation and strategy implementation is a false one under certain conditions – e.g. the formulator isn’t fully informed or the environment isn’t sufficiently stable -, because it ignores the learning that must often follow the conception of an intended strategy. According to Mintzberg, another important point is that the formalization of an emergent strategy as the new, intended strategy is hardly incidental to the organization. The author states that the very act of explicating an implicit strategy changes fundamental the attitude of the bureaucracy and of the environment. He further argues that the very fact of making a strategy explicit provides a clear and formal invitation to the bureaucracy to run with it. But the author also notes that sometimes it can be risky to make strategy explicit, notably in an uncertain environment with an aggressive bureaucracy. He makes the point that the strategy-maker may awake one day to find that his intended strategy has somehow been implemented beyond his wildest intentions. It has been overrealized. Conclusion and critique on the paper In my estimation, the paper †Patterns in strategy formation† is very well-written. The author, Mintzberg, first describes what the paper will be all about. After that, he introduces the theme, strategy as a pattern in a stream of decisions, and shows how this definition leads naturally to the choice of a research methodology. After that, he explains the four steps of the analysis he will use to reviews the major periods of two organizations (Volkswagenwerk and U.S. government in Vietnam). By using these major studies he arouses the reader’s interest and creates a fundamental basis to examine and prove aspects, that strategy formation can be viewed as the interplay of environment, bureaucracy and leadership, that that strategy formation appears to follow distinct regularities and that the study of the interplay between intended and realized strategies may be central to the strategy formation process. Furthermore, he admits that this studies constitute a limited data base, but they do call into question a number of assumptions about the process of strategy formation in organizations, e.g. that a strategy is not a fixed plan, that dichotomy between strategy formulation and strategy implementation is a false one under certain common conditions or that it can sometimes be risky to make strategy explicit. Some general conclusions suggested by these studies are complex and very difficult to understand but, nevertheless, the well-disposed reader understands the approach. This is mainly because, he explains his statements on this two studies closely. To sum up, the paper is well-structured and of a good concept. Furthermore, the paper ties in with very important and interesting research-fields in strategy management.

A Tort Law - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 11 Words: 3232 Downloads: 10 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Cause and effect essay Tags: Tort Essay Did you like this example? Introduction Based on the question, Mark had suffered property damage due to the fire that was set by the youths. Therefore, we are required to advice Mark in respect of any claims he may have against various parties: the Amber Borough Council (hereinafter ABC), Chigley Services, Home Office, Justin and Jason, and the Fire Brigade. Technically, Mark could bring an action for economic loss under negligence and vicarious liability which are governed by the law of tort. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "A Tort Law" essay for you Create order Since we are advising Mark to take an action for economic loss, we will be discussing pure economic loss before considering the potential liabilities of each party. Economic Loss First and foremost, the law of tort has always been willing to compensate losses resulting from tort that are described as economic with damages[1]. Generally, there are 2 types of economic loss: the consequential and pure economic loss. There is a case which illustrates the difference between the types of loss, Spartan Steel v Martin[2]. Here, the claimant was unable to carry out their operation due to the defendantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s negligence and claim under three heads: firstly, the damage to the metal that was in the furnace at the time of the power cut; secondly, the loss of profit that would have been made on the sale of that metal; and thirdly, the loss of profit on metal which would have been processed during the time the factory was closed due to the power cut. A majority of the Court of Appeal held that the first two claims were recoverable as the first claim belongs to physical damage to property while the second claim categorized as economic loss arising from damage to property. However, the third claim was not recoverable as the court held that it was pure economic loss and due to policy reasons. Thus, pure economic loss is not recoverable as it does not result from damage to property or physical injury but rather claim through insurance by virtue of the case of Marc Rich v Bishop[3]. By referring back to the facts, it was found that the fire set out by the youths had caused damage to the neighbouring property including Markà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s bakerà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s shop. Therefore, it is likely that Mark would be able to claim for consequential economic loss. However, each partyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s tortious liability needs to be established first in order for Mark to be able to succeed in his claims. Justin Jason Based on the question, the youths who ha d broken into the disused school and set fire to it had been clearing rubbish from a neighbouring stream and were supposed to have been supervised by Justin and Jason, both of whom are Chigley Services employees. However, both of them had gone for a cigarette break and left the youths unsupervised at the time the break-in occurred. Thus, Mark could bring an action against them under negligence. As per Baron Alderson in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks[4], he defines negligence as à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“omission to do something, which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something, which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [5] Therefore, in order for negligence to be actionable, there are three main elements to be established as stated by Lord Wright in Lochgelly Iron Co v McMullan[6]: The defendant must owe the claimant a duty of care; The defendant must breach that duty of care; That failure must cause damage to the claimant and the damage is not too remote. Duty of care First and foremost, Mark must prove that both Justin and Jason owe him a duty of care. If he fails to establish this, his suit will be unsuccessful regardless of how careless the defendant is or the defendant carelessness that caused the damage. In regard to the establishment of duty of care, we are required to look into Lord Atkinà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s groundbreaking judgement in the early case of Donoghue v Stevenson[7]. In this case, Lord Atkin had developed the neighbourhood principle which states that the duty of care is owed to à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the act or omission called into questionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [8] Therefore, once the neighbour principle is satisfied, the person will be assumed to have duty of care towards the claimant. Despite a two-stage test was set down in Anns v Merton[9] after the case of Donoghue, in 1990, it has been overruled by Caparo v Dickman[10] which laid down the modern three part test and it was said to be the basic test for duty of care which is still applicable until today. Thus, in order to decide whether there was a duty of care, the court must now consider: Whether the consequences of the defendantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s act were reasonably foreseeable; Whether there is a relationship of proximity between the parties; and Whether in all the circumstances it would be just, fair and reasonable to impose a duty Firstly, the defendant must have foreseen the risk of harm to the claimant at the time he is alleged to have been negligent. As stated by Lord Lloyd in Page v Smith[11], à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“the test in every case ought to be whether the defendant can reasonably foresee that his conduct will expose the claimant to the riskà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [12] By referring back to the question, Justin and Jason were supervising a group of youths from a young offenders institution, hence, it is reasonable to foresee that by leaving the youths unsupervised, it would expose Mark to a certain risk. Even though Justin and Jason might try to argue based on the case of Topp v London Country Bus[13] where the bus company did not owe a duty of care when leaving a bus unattended and joy riders stole the bus and injured the claimant. It is unlikely that they will succeed as the bus was not operating at that time. Secondly, Mark must prove that there is a relationship of proximity between him and the defendants. P roximity must be a legal one rather than factual proximity. Following the case of Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman[14], proximity could be said as involving the notion of nearness or closeness, a nexus or relationship; embracing physical proximity between the parties or their property; concerning proximity in relationships such as employer and employee or of a professional man and his client; including causal proximity in the sense of the closeness or directness between the course of conduct and the loss and injury sustained; or reflecting an assumption by one party of a responsibility to take care to avoid the injury, loss or damage to another, or where a party relies on such care. Based on the question, there is a relationship of proximity between Mark and the defendants as the bakerà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s shop was located nearby the school. Thirdly, the court must consider whether it is just, fair and reasonable to impose a duty on the defendants. The test of fairness is closely associated and inevitably intertwined with the first two elements. Therefore, it is the judgesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ discretion to impose a duty of care if it is just fair and reasonable. Breach of duty of care After proving that there was a duty of care owed to Mark, he must now prove that Justin and Jason have breached the duty of care. The second element of the negligence refers to the standard of care that is appropriate to the duty owed. Therefore, when the party owing the particular duty falls below the standard of behaviour that is required that is required by the respective duty, breach of duty occurs. Before accessing in detail, we must first identify whether Justin and Jason is an ordinary or skilled defendant. Based on the question, it could be seen that they are ordinary person. Therefore, the appropriate standard of care would be based on reasonable manà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s test and the conduct of Justin and Jason are measured against that of a reasonable person in the same circumstances. In deciding whether there was a breach of duty, the court will take into account the following four factors: the degree of risk involved, the practicability of taking precautions, the seriousness of harm and the social importance of the risky activity. In the case Walker v Northumberland[15], the courts held that the defendants was in breach of their duty due to failing to take reasonable steps to avoid psychiatric injury after knowing of the social workerà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s likelihood to suffer a subsequent nervous breakdown. This could be a good illustration to the facts of the question because by applying it, Justin and Jason would be in breach of their duty of care for failing to take reasonable steps to avoid the risk involved since the youths had track records of juvenile behaviour to commit offences again. Causation After establishing the first two elements, the third element that needs to be established by Mark is the element of causation. In the ca se of Barnett v Kensington[16], the court adopted the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“but forà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  test in regards to factual causation. By referring to the question, it is certain that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“but forà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  the breach of duty of care by Justin and Jason the incident would not have occurred. Nevertheless, Justin and Jason might rely on novus actus interveniens by stating that the action of the youths, the fire brigade and the Amber Borough Council have break the chain of causation. It is highly likely that Justin and Jason will quote the case of Smith v Littlewood[17] stating that the youths broke the chain of causation by setting the fire. On the other hand, Mark could argue by distinguishing the facts in Smith as the cinema owners in that case did not know about previous acts of vandalism but on the facts the local residents reported that youths had broken into the site on a number of occasions. Remoteness of damage The final element of proof in negligence is whet her there is a causation in law, which also known as remoteness of damage. In order for Mark to succeed in claiming under negligence, it is essential for him to prove that the damage is not too remote. In the case of Wagon Mound 2[18], the court held that the defendants were liable even though the likelihood of harm was low, the seriousness of harm was high and it would have cost nothing to prevent it.[19] Therefore, by applying back to the case, it is highly likely that Justin and Jason would be held liable for the property damage suffered by Mark due to the seriousness of harm and the likelihood of the youths to cause damage. Even though Justin and Jason would argue based on the case of Wagon Mound 1[20] which lies the test of whether the damage is of a kind that was foreseeable and argue that the damage caused by the youths was unforeseeable, it is likely that they would fail. Thus, Mark would be successful in claiming from Justin and Jason. Chigley Services In order to act in the best interest of the client, we could advise Mark to bring an action against Chigley Services under the tort of vicarious liability to claim for damages since Justin and Jason are the employees of Chigley Services. This is because an employer will be in the best financial position to meet a claim rather than an individual and therefore, Mark would be able to claim a higher amount of damage. The tort of vicarious liability is a form of joint liability since an employer is being made liable for the tort committed by his employee. In pursuance of establishing vicarious liability, there are a few elements that need to be established. First and foremost, whether the person committing the primary tort is an employee; secondly, was there a tort that has been committed; and thirdly, was the tort committed in the course of employment or so closely connected to the employment. The court would refer to the Employment Rights Act 1996[21] in determining the employment status. It is no do ubt that Chigley Services is the employer of Justin and Jason and both of them had committed tort. Hence, the only issue that we need to consider would be whether the tort committed was in the course of employment. Mark would argue that both Justin and Jason had carried out an authorised act in an unauthorised manner by having a cigarette break owing to the case of Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Transport Board[22]. Per contra, Chigley Services could bring in the case of Hilton v Thomas Burton[23] to support their rebutment by stating that the tort was committed outside the course of employment and Justin and Jason were à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“on a frolicà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ . Therefore, Mark would not be likely to succeed in claiming from Chigley Services by virtue of this case. Home Office Duty of Care Based on the neighbor principle in Donoghue, it is possible for Mark to bring his case against the Home Office to claim for economic loss under the tort of negligence. As discussed above, Mark needs to satisfy the four elements as required so that his claim would be successful. Therefore, the Caparo test would be used again to consider whether the Home Office owes Mark a duty of care. However, it must be noted that since the Home Office is a public authority and act under a statutory duty, the courts are withdrawn from imposing duty due to policy reasons. Policy Reasons The policy reasons are the main consideration for the courts to decide whether or not to impose liability. As stated by Winfield and Jolowicz, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“the court must decide not simply whether there is or is not a duty, but whether there should or should not be one.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [24] The liability of public authorities is subjected into misfeasance and non-feasance. In this case, it would be a non-feasance liability and the traditional approach is in the case of Home Office v Dorset Yacht [25] which is very similar to the present case. In Dorset, it was held that the Home Office owes a duty of care towards the claimant as they were in control of the 3rd party and was reasonably foreseeable that harm would result in their action. On the other hand, the Home Office could support their argument by using the case of Lamb v London Borough of Camden[26] as Lord Denning, for a unanimous court, rejects the Home Officeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s test for being too expansive and allowing damages to be assessed when they should not. He further stated that in all of these types of cases what really lies behind the judicial decisions is public policy.[27] Besides, the Home Office could reinforce their argument by stating that there was no sufficient proximity between Mark and the Home Office as per the case of K v Secretary of the State for the Home Department[28]. Hence, the court would not impose liability on the Home Office based on policy reasons. Fire Brigade Further, Mark could bring an action against the fire brigade under negligence. Without doubt, it is reasonabl y foreseeable that the fire would continue to spread and caused injury or property damage due to the negligence of the fire brigade and therefore the issue of proximity will be accessed. Based on the case of Hill v CC of West Yorkshire[29], the court will generally render insufficient proximity between public authority and general public. However, Mark could cite the case of Kent v Griffiths[30] to strengthen his argument that the fire brigade owed him a duty of care and there was sufficient proximity between the parties. In this case, Lord Reid stated that if a person who is foreseeable to suffer further injuries by a delay in providing an ambulance and there was no reason why it should not be provided, it is important in establishing the necessary proximity and duty of care in the case. On the other hand, the fire brigade would rely on the case of John Munroe v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority[31] to exclude liability. The fire brigade could distinguish Kent by stating that in the present case, the Amber Valley Fire Brigade was unavailable at that time, which means that they had other duties to carry out aside from Markà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s. Besides, the other fire engine dispatched from Leicester who got lost because they put the wrong address in the sat-nav may be acceptable as they might be unfamiliar of Amber Valley. Thus, the court would discharge the fire brigadeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s liability due to policy reasons. ABC Last but not least, Mark could pursue an action under negligence to claim from ABC as well. The duty of care will be establish if Mark able to satisfy the Caparo test as discussed above. Since the site had broken into on a number of occasions, ABC could be found reasonably liable and there was sufficient proximity between the parties since the bakery shop was nearby the school. The question will lie on whether ABC had breach the duty of care. Mark could apply the case of Miller v Jackson[32] in contrast with Bolton v Stone[33] at his favor. Due to the site was broken into on a couple of times, the likelihood of injury would be high and therefore ABC would be in breach of duty. Besides, the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“but for testà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  also in favor of Mark because à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“but forà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  the breach of ABC the youth would not have enter into the site and conduct any offences. However, ABC could challenge on the ground of legal causation and held that the damage done was too remote by relying on Wagon Mound 1. Thus, Mark would be likely to fail in his claim. Conclusion In a nutshell, Mark could pursue an action against these parties but he will only be successful in claiming damages from Justin and Jason. 1 [1] Catherine Elliott Frances Quinn, Tort Law ( 7th edition, Pearson Education Limited 2009 ) pg.27 [2] Spartan Steel Alloys Ltd v Martin [1972] 3 WLR 502 [3] Marc Rich v Bishop Rock Marine [1996]1 AC 212 (HL) [4] Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company [1856] 11 Ex Ch 781 [5] Ibid. [6] Lochgelly Iron and Coal Co. v. McMullan [1934] AC1, 25 [7] Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 [8] Ibid [9] Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] A.C. 728 [10] Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2 [11] Page v Smith [1995] UKHL 7 [12] Ibid [13] Topp v London Country Bus (South West) Ltd [1993] CA [14] Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424 [15] Walker v Northumberland County Council [1995] IRLR 35 [16] Barnett v Chelsea Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1968] 1 All ER 1068 [17] Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987] UKHL 18 [18] Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. 2) [ 1967] 1 AC 617 [19] Available at https://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/The-Wagon-Mound-No-2.php accessed 17th January 2014 [20] Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or Wagon Mound (No. 1) [1961] UKPC 1 [21] Employment Rights Act 1996 [22] Century Insurance Co v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board [1942] AC 509 [23] Hilton v Thomas Burton (Rhodes) Ltd [1961] [24] Chris Turner Sue Hodge, Unlocking Torts (3rd edition, Hodder Education, 2010) [25] Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] UKHL 2 [26] Lamb v London Borough of Camden [1981]2 All ER 408 (CA) [27] Ibid [28] K v Secretary of the State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 983 [29] Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] 2 WLR 1049 [30] Kent v Griffiths [2000] 2 All ER 474 [31] John Munroe v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority [1997] QB 1004 (CA) [32] Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966 [33] Bolton v. Stone [1951] AC 850, [1951] 1 All ER 1078