Assignment on Tort Law in Australia
10 Pages2604 Words41 Views
Added on 2020-04-07
Assignment on Tort Law in Australia
Added on 2020-04-07
ShareRelated Documents
Running head: BUSINESS LAWBusiness lawName of the StudentName of the UniversityAuthor Note
1BUSINESS LAWA tort may be defined as a civil wrong that is committed by one individual againstanother. There is no specific legislation or a statute that defines the term as it has evolved mainlythrough common law or judge made laws. Tort law in Australia is heavily influenced by thecommon law of other countries such as the United Kingdom owing to the colonial heritage ofAustralia. However, there have been modifications in the tort law with the enactment of thestatute ‘Civil Liability Acts’ in several Australian states. Some of the common torts in AustralianLaw includes negligence, trespass, misrepresentation, breach of statutory and public duties,interference with employment and family relations, intentional damage to economic interests,private nuisance, defamation, etc (Leon 2015).The torts applicable in business situations are known as economic torts. Economic orbusiness torts are wrongful acts that are committed against the business entities. Such wrongfulacts are often committed deliberately and sometimes they result from recklessness or negligence,which causes some kind of pecuniary loss to the aggrieved party. Although these torts are notcriminal offenses but some acts may amount to criminal offences as well such as restraint oftrade (Little et al. 2014). The wrongful acts that leads to financial loss in business as a result ofintentional negligent acts, the aggrieved party or the business is entitled to bring a civilcompensation in the civil court and seek monetary compensation or obtain an injunction orderwith a view to prohibit the defendant from committing such unlawful activities. The most common form of torts that is applicable in business situations includes the tortof negligence and the tort of misrepresentation. Negligence may be defined as the failure of anindividual to exercise duty of care towards a person he owed such duty. The principle that anindividual owes a duty of care to his neighbor has been established in the Donoghue vStevenson’s case. The term ‘neighbor’ refers to the person who would be affected by the acts or
2BUSINESS LAWomissions of the person committing such acts or omission. The risk of harm that would resultfrom the action or omission of the person must be reasonably foreseeable and the person musttake reasonable steps to avert such risk. In order to establish a claim against a person for negligence, the aggrieved must establishthe essential elements of the tort of negligence. The aggrieved party must establish that thedefendant owed a duty of care and has caused a breach of that duty. The plaintiff has suffereddamages and sustained injuries as a result of such breach. The damage caused must be the directresult of the consequence of such breach as was held in Barnett v Chelsea & KensingtonHospital [1969] 1 QB 428. Further, it is imperative to establish for the aggrieved party that theloss resulted was the consequence of breach and the risk was reasonably foreseeable. Anyreasonable person could have foresee the risk if he was in the position of the defendant, undersame circumstances. This principle was introduced in the case Wagon Mound No 1 [1969] AC388, where the court ruled that if the defendant were liable for the loss that was foreseeable, hewould be completely liable for the loss.An instance of tort of negligence in business situations may be exemplified in a caseOyston v St Patricks’s College [2011] NSWSC 269, where a student won a negligence caseagainst his school where the school failed to exercise its duty of care. Jazmine Oyston brought alegal action against her former high school, St. Patrick’s College, in New South Wales, on theground of negligence. Jazmine alleged that she was injured at the time of enrolment and wassubject to harassment, bullying which caused her to suffer from panic attacks, depression, andanxiety. She alleged that the policies and practices of the school failed to safeguard her from theforeseeable and recognized harm. The court held that the risk of harm was foreseeable and the
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Business Law - Joystick Companylg...
|9
|2220
|249
Assignment on Law Negligencelg...
|13
|3690
|372
Negligence Law: Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, and Damageslg...
|9
|1643
|113
Document On Business Law- Australialg...
|10
|2527
|60
Commercial law : Sample Assignment PDFlg...
|14
|3265
|20
Business Law Assignment | Law of Tortlg...
|11
|2802
|162