Glare from London 'fryscraper' blamed for melting cars

Abstract
The Legal rights and liabilities (torts) of the primary parties involved in the London’s Frying Skyscraper. The paper involves the Jag owner vs. Developer, Jag Owner vs. Designer, Developer vs. Designer and City vs. Developer and Designer. Questions that have been posed upon each case are what the parties will sue for and which torts? What evidence will they have on hand to prove their cases? And what legal evidence will the defendants offer?

The Jag owner should sue the Developer for negligence because not only did he suffer damage to his vehicle, he failed to carry out a duty of care to ensure a safe building. The tort of negligence occurs when someone suffers injury because of another’s failure to live up to a required duty of care. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant owed a duty of care to build a safe building that would not cause any damages and in this case he suffered a legally recognizable injury by proving there was in fact melting of his car. His car’s side panels had been warped along one side, while the wing mirror and Jaguar emblem melted, all of which has be documented by photographic evidence. Additionally, the developer should have notified the city to put up signs and request the parking spaces near the tower to be out of use. Also, by installing anti-glare film on the windows, replace the whole glazing panels or adjust the angle of the panes, would be carrying out a duty of care. The developer should also have checked with his employees to see if any issues came up on their side. In contrast, the defendant argues that there is no reasonable way he could have known or foreseen of these kinds of damages occurring as it is an uncommon occurrence. The defendant relied on the city planner and designer’s expertise. “The developer claims that the phenomenon could be the current