Business Law

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
BUSINESS LAW
Table of Contents
PART 1...........................................................................................................................2
PART 2...........................................................................................................................6
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................10

2
BUSINESS LAW
PART 1
ISSUE
To determine whether jenny can successfully sue the Hunter Bus line for damages for
her injury and for the loss of enjoyment of her holiday.
RULE
To establish that a person or an organisation has committed an act of negligence, the
plaintiff or the claimant must show that his case includes all the essentials elements to
constitute negligence which were discussed under Donoghue v Stevenson1. In this case, it was
held that
A person would be charged with negligence only when: a) he had a duty of care towards
another; b) he failed to carry out such duty and hence there is a breach of duty of care; c)
such breach caused an injury to another person; d) such event causing the injury was
foreseeable; e) the person causing the injury and the aggrieve person were in a proximate
relation to foresee the risk.
It must be established that the claimant and the defendant were in such a position that
makes the defendant liable to owe a duty of care towards the claimant, thereby causing a
breach when he fails to carry out such duty. Such breach of duty of care must amount to an
injury or loss to the claimant as held in Donoghue v Stevenson2. In addition, it must be proved
the defendant had such a proximity with the claimant that it was possible to foresee the risk
that caused the injury; the risk must not have been too remote to locate as held in Lamb v.
London Borough of Camden3. In Anns v Merton London Borough Council, the court had
established two additional requisites to establish the breach of duty of care by the defendant
by a two-stage test where it was held that: a) the defendant had a proximate relationship with
1 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562.
2 Ibid.
3 Lamb v. London Borough of Camden [1981] QB 625.

3
BUSINESS LAW
the claimant to foresee the risk; and b) it is fair and reasonable to expect that a duty of care
existed4.
In addition to establishing an act of negligence, the concept of Strict Liability is a
factor that makes people, organisation or authority responsible for any adverse consequence
that affects people to whom such other people, organisation or authority owed a duty of care.
The people, organisation or the authority is to be held liable for any injury cause to the
aggrieved party even though it had not breached its duty of care and such injury had arisen
out of the fault of the aggrieved party himself. The principle of strict liability imposes
liability on a party even when the defendant does not have a fault under the law of tort, but a
fault in general concerning a duty of care only, irrespective of the fact that whether it was
foreseeable or not. Such strict liability is only imposed on people or organisation only when it
considered to be inherently dangerous and that the defendant must have carried out his duty
to such extent as to prevent the injury. Even though defendant may cite the Exclusion Clause
for giving notice of caution, yet he does not escapes from the principle of strict liability.
However, the courts do not entertain claims of damages based on pure economic
loss; losses that can only be showed on the balance sheet and not physically in the form of an
injury or damage.
APPLICATION
In the given case, Jenny and Will purchased a ticket of Hunter Bus line for a trip to
Hunter valley for a holiday. Therefore, it signifies that the Bus line owes its passengers a
certain duty of care; to protect the passengers from any probable danger that might occur in
the course of their journey in the bus. The bus line was supposed to expressly warn the
passengers about the probable dangers that they might face in the journey if they do not
follow the regular safety instructions, like not moving around the bus when it is motion,
mandate of wearing a seat belt, et cetera. The bus line failed to provide safety precautions for
4 Anns v Merton London Borough Council (1978) AC 728.