Legal Duty of Dandenong Council to Take Precautions Against Jack Smith
Verified
Added on  2023/03/17
|6
|1737
|71
AI Summary
This article discusses the legal duty of Dandenong Council to take precautions against Jack Smith and the implications of negligence. It explores the elements of duty, breach, and damages in the law of negligence. The article also examines the possibility of Jack Smith recovering economic losses caused by the council's negligence.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
2 Solution Issue 1 CanDandenong Council be held to be under legal duty to take precautions against Jack Smith? Law In common law, there are several legal principles that exist and one of the principles is the law of negligence. The general philosophy behind the law of negligence is that every plaintiff must be protected by the defendant while undertaking any of his activities and is analyzed inHill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire[1989].This principle that revolves around the law of negligence is developed inDonoghue v Stevenson(1932). In the said case, the plaintiff suffered fvrom injuries agfter consuming ginger beer which contains a decomposed snail. The House of Lord submitted that the manufcatrer onws a duty of care towards the plaintiff as the plaintiff is the neighbour of the defenmanufcatuer. Lord ATkin raised the basic porincipel as to who then a neighboiur is and thus basic question has resulted in the development of some of the essentail components that are required to hold any defendant negligent. The components includes duty, breach and damages. (Khan and Robson, 2012) This application of law of negligence is also extended to public authorities/council. Now, the main elements to prove negligence are: Every defendant has an obligation that by no acts of his any loss should be caused to the plaintiff. The duty is applicable towards the plaintiff with whom the defendant is sharing the relationship of proximity or nearnessMutual lifeandcitizen's Assurance Co Ltd V Evatt[1971]. It is necessary that the plaintiffs must be foresee by the defendant reasonably ((Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman[1990]. The duty is furthermore applied when the plaintiff and the defendant are in special relationship, wherein the plaintiff is relying ion the advice of the defendant prior acting in any certain manner (Shaddock and Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council(No 1). [1981]. These are the elements that must be kept in mind to impose a duty of care on the defendant. Application In order to purchase a land for building a township, Jack Smith wanted tomakesurethatsuch land is not covered by any kind of road widening proposal byDandenong councilas the land
3 would cost$2 million and if the road is widened then Jack Smith would suffer a loss of $1 million. Now, in such situation, since Dandenong council is aware that Jack Smith is relying on the advice of the council, thus, as pershaddock and Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council(No 1), the parties are holding a special relationship between themselves. Inshaddock and Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council(No 1), the council was in the knowledge of the information sought by the plaintiff and thus there exists a special relationship amid the parties wherein the council must provide care to the plaintiff as the plaintiff is relying on the information from the council. Also, the council is fully aware that the information will affect Jack and the position of Jack is also foreseeable by the council. Thus, in every aspect, the elements of duty of care are comply with. Conclusion To conclude, it is submitted that both Jack and the council are sharing the special relationship and the relationship of proximity. Also, the council can foresee the presence of Jack like a normal prudent man and thus there is presence of duty of care amid the parties. Issue 2 To evaluate the position ofDandenong council, is the duty is fulfilled against Jack Smith? Law The general philosophy behind the law of negligence is that every plaintiff must be protected by the defendant while undertaking any of his activities. The care that is desired from the defendant can only be met when the level/standard of precaution that is expected from the defendant in any given circumstances must be met like a normal prudent man in the given situation. InHedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd[1964], the court held that the level of care is higher when the danger or risk is high and vice versa. Various factors are construed before evaluating the standard of care, that is, age of the plaintiuff, literacy, danger, effect, etc.(MacIntyre, 2018) Further, when the defendant and the plaintiff are in special relationship wherein the plaintiff acts are dependants upon the information so furnished by the defendant, then, held inMinistry of Housing and Local Government v. Sharp(1970), that the level of care is much higher in
4 comparison with what a normal prudent man would have acted in the given situation. InMinistry of Housing and Local Governmentthe negligent acts of the emplyee resulted in causing harm to the minstry considerng the fact that they both are in sspecial relationhsip and thus the level of care is high in comparison to the normal human being. Application The council is aware that Jack is making his decision of buying the land only on the information so provided. Thus, it is the duty of the council to make sure that all the relevant information must be given to Jack. But, considering the situation and the position that council hold in the given situation, the level of cares that is cater by the council fall short off what a normal prudent man would have acted in the given situation. Conclusion Since the council has not provided its level of care, thus, there is breach of duty of care. Issue 3 Can Jack Smith have sustained loss because of the breach of duty byDandenong council? Law There are three elements that are needed for the compliance of law of negligence and to hold any defendant liable for negligence, that is, duty, breach and damage. The damage so caused can be held to be part of the law of negligence, when, the loss so caused is the outcome of the breach and so there is presence of the element of causation. Also, the damage is not far and is not remote. InSayers v Harlow Urban District Council[1961], the loss caused to the plaintiff by falling from the toilet roll was held to be too remote the loss that can be predicted by a normal human being. Application Now, the council shares special relationship with Jack and thus is under duty of care. But, this duty is violated by the council. Now, by not providing the relevant information, Jack suffers a loss of 1 million which is directly caused because of breach and the loss is also not remote. Conclusion It is submitted that all the damage that is caused by Jack is the result of the breach of duty on the part ofDandenong council and thus the damage is the result of the negligence of the council
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
5 Issue 4 Can Smith have any power to recover the economic loss so suffered because of the negligence of Dandenong council? Law Every defendant has a duty that his acts must not cause harm to the plaintiff. When this duty is not cater with and because of such violation, there is damage caused to the plaintiff, then, the defendant is considered to be negligent. Now, as perCaltex Oil (Australia) Pty. Ltd. v. The Dredge "Willemstad"(1976), every plaintiff has the power to receive the economic loss so suffered by him. This loss is the financial loss that is caused to the plaintiff because of the breach. So, losses in monetary terms are considered as economic loss and are recoverable under the law of negligence. Application Dandenong council owns a duty which was violated and which resulted in loss to Jack Smith. The economic loss that is caused to Jack Smith is the reduction in the value of the land that is caused because of the raid widening proposal, that is, 1 million. So, it is the economic loss is suffered and Dandenong council must pay the same. Conclusion Jack has the power to sueDandenong council for the losses that are caused to him and has all the power to recover the economic losses so suffered by him.
6 Reference List Books/articles/Journals MacIntyre, E. (2018).Business Law,Pearson UK,22-Feb-2018. Khan, K and Robson, M. (2012).Clinical Negligence,Routledge. Case laws Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty. Ltd. v. The Dredge "Willemstad"(1976). Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman[1990] UKHL 2 Donoghue v Stevenson[1932] UKHL 100. Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd[1964]. Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire[1989] AC 53. Latimer v AEC Ltd[1952] Ministry of Housing and Local Government v. Sharp(1970), Mutual lifeandcitizen's Assurance Co Ltd V Evatt[1971] AC 793. Shaddock and Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council(No 1). [1981] HCA 59. Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council[1961]. San Sebastian Pty Ltd v The Minister(1983).