Business and Corporation Law

RUNNING HEAD: BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
Business and
Corporation Law

BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
Issue 1
In the given situation, to establish a case under negligence, the first thing, which must be
shown by the Angelo, is that whether Bernard owned duty of care towards him.
Rule 1
In general, the tort of negligence means a violation of obligation of care that was predictable
and caused the harm or damage to another party (Mulheron, 2016). In order to prove a case of
negligence, it must be shown by the injured party that the defendant had an obligation of care
that was significant, not too distant and foreseeable in nature and there was breach of such
duty (Stickley, 2016).
The first thing to establish case under negligence is obligation of care (Lunney & Oliphant,
2013). It relates to the conditions and interactions recognized by the law as providing rise to
lawful obligation of care. Failure to take such care may lead in the offender being responsible
to pay compensations to party that is injured or suffers harm due to their contravention of
obligation of care (Strong & Williams, 2011). In the case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
UKHL 100, two test or requirements were given by the tribunal to establish obligation of
care, these are; test of foreseeability and nexus of relationship.
The same test was recognized in the case of Anns v Merton London Borough Council (1978)
AC 728. In this case, court held that it must be shown that there is as sufficient connection of
nexus among the alleged accused and an individual who has suffered injury so that, in the
former’s reasonable contemplations, carelessness on his part can cause harm to the latter-in
which case a prima facie obligation of care arises. If it is so then, in order to negate the
liability the offender may put forward policy concerns.
.
Application1
According to the facts provided in the present scenario, Angelo can attempt to file a suit
against Bernard for possible case of negligence. However, in order to establish the case under
negligence he needs to prove two elements of negligence as mentioned above. The first is
obligation of care.
1

BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
In the given scenario, it must be noted that mechanic owed duty of care towards Angelo.
Angelo booked his car into the defendant’s garage for repairing. When he went to collect his
car Bernard told him that the work is complete but he completely forgotten to fully tighten
the handbrake cable that resulted in collision due to which his car was damaged and injured
the third person. As per the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, Bernard would owe obligation of
care to Angelo, as he was a customer of his repairing shop, where they both had relationship
of proximity.
As per the case of Anns v Merton London Borough Council, it can be seen that there was a
connection between both the parties i.e. of customer and service provider, which shows the
proximity among the Bernard (offender) and Angelo (aggrieved), who has agonized injury.
Thus, the carelessness on the part of Bernard caused harm to Angelo due to which prima
facie obligation of care arises here.
Conclusion 1
Concisely it can be said that, Bernard owed obligation of care towards Angelo to be mindful
of the services rendered and aware of potential harms associated with not fixing the
handbrake.
2