logo

NEGLIGENCE 7 Business Law Assignment Case Study 21-Aug-17

7 Pages1478 Words124 Views
   

VICTORIA UNIVERSITY

   

BLO1105 Business Law (BLO1105)

   

Added on  2020-03-02

About This Document

BLO1105 - The case study highlights the key issue as being the negligence on part of MacTools Ltd towards two parties, i.e., Aurora and Jessie. The case of negligence begins by showing that there was a breach of duty of care. For this purpose, the presence of duty of care is to be shown, followed by showing that this duty of care had been contravened. 

NEGLIGENCE 7 Business Law Assignment Case Study 21-Aug-17

   

VICTORIA UNIVERSITY

   

BLO1105 Business Law (BLO1105)

   Added on 2020-03-02

ShareRelated Documents
Business Law AssignmentCase Study(Student Details: )
NEGLIGENCE 7 Business Law Assignment Case Study 21-Aug-17_1
NEGLIGENCE2IssueThe case study highlights the key issue as being the negligence on part of MacTools Ltd towards two parties, i.e., Aurora and Jessie. RuleThe best way to define negligence is the contravention of obligation of care, which results in the second party being injured owing to the negligent act of the first party (Latimer, 2012, p. 225). Further, the result of such actions is such that the second party is injured in a significant manner. For establishing a case of negligence, the second party is required to show to the court that there had been a presence of different elements like the duty of care, the breach of it, the injury, loss not being too remote, causation and foreseeability (Barnett and Harder, 2014, p. 148).The case of negligence begins by showing that there was a breach of duty of care. For this purpose, the presence of duty of care is to be shown, followed by showing that this duty of care had been contravened (Greene, 2013, p. 13). Whenever the duty of care is to be established, the leading case is that of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562. This is an English case where the court held that the relation between the manufacturer and consumer was such that the acts done by manufacturer could harm the consumer. This is what happened in this case, as the breach of duty of care by the defendant occurred when he let the bottle of ginger bottle being contaminated with dead snail, and the consumption of this, led to the plaintiff being injured. The defendant had claimed that he had no duty as the bottle was consumed when the plaintiff was
NEGLIGENCE 7 Business Law Assignment Case Study 21-Aug-17_2
NEGLIGENCE3sitting at a café and so it was the duty of the café. As a result of this, the defendant was required to compensate the plaintiff for their loss (E-Law Resources, 2017).Next comes establishing that the second party suffered some harm or injury or loss. This loss has to be substantial in nature and cannot be too remote (McKendrick and Liu, 2015, p. 468). As the loss was deemed as too remote, the damages were not awarded in the case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd [1961] UKPC 2. Another requirement is to show that the injury was a direct result of the negligence of the defendant. The last requirement is to present that the loss was foreseeable (H2O, 2017). For this, the view of a prudent person is to be taken, as was held was judges in the case of Wyong Shire Council v Shirt(1980) 146 CLR 40 (Swarb, 2015). Upon the presence of all these elements in one incident, a case of negligence can be made (Gibson and Fraser, 2014, p. 170). And once the court is satisfied that all of these elements were indeed present, the injured party can apply for damages for the emotional distress, physical injury and for economic loss (Emanuel, 2015, p. 9). One of the defenses which can be cited in cases of negligence is the contributory negligence of the second party. When the second party undertakes such an activity, due to which the injury sustained by them is contributed to, they are to be held liable for their part of contribution in the injury sustained by them. And in such cases, the damage awarded to them is apportioned (Dongen, 2014, p. 365). Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB 286 saw the damages being reduced by £100 as the plaintiff was not wearing the seat belt when the accident was caused by the defendant (Swarb, 2017).
NEGLIGENCE 7 Business Law Assignment Case Study 21-Aug-17_3

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Law Assignment | Commercial & Corporation Law
|6
|1401
|86

Commercial Law - volenti non fit injuria
|6
|1337
|343

LAW 6 qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio
|6
|1082
|429

Assignment on Commercial Laws
|6
|1395
|79

HI6027 - Business and Corporation Law
|6
|1493
|82

LAW220 Business Organisations Law | CSU
|6
|1452
|89