Business Law | Assignment-2

0
Running head: BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author’s note:

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT1
Issue
The issue involved in this given scenario, whether Bob will be liable for injury to Gerg
and Mary or not.
Law
In this scenario, the rule of negligence will apply to advise Bob whether he has any
liability towards them. In the rule of negligence, there are four essential elements. Firstly, a duty
of care; secondly, breach of such duty of care; thirdly, any harm or injury causes to any person;
and fourthly, there must be a direct relationship between that breach and injury or harm. In the
case of Donoghue vs. Stevenson 1932, it can be concerned that the plaintiff should establish a
duty of care of the defendant towards him. The test of establishing a duty of care for any
negligent act has been formulated in such a precedent case. Section 5B (1) of the Civil Liability
Act 2002 (NSW) has also adopted such test of such reasonable foreseeability. In the case of
Perre vs. Apand 1999, the Australian High Court has also highlighted various factors to decide
whether there is a duty of care or not. It has included that the harm is reasonably foreseeable and
a close relationship between the defendant and the aggrieved. It should be examined whether
there is any policy for which liability will not be imposed. In the case of Bolton vs. Stone 1951,
it has confirmed that the court should testify such probability or likelihood of any harm, which
may arise from any action of the defendant. Denning L. J., in the case of Latimer vs. AEC Ltd.
1953, has uttered that such foreseeable risk is a matter of balancing risk and necessary steps to an
element of such a risk. In the case of Cork v Kirby Maclean 1952, the learned judge has looked
to the phrase ‘but for’ in any negligent case. There should be a proximate relation between the