Business Law Assignment 2018: Potential Plaintiffs in Case of Negligence
Verified
Added on 2023/06/09
|5
|1227
|254
AI Summary
This Business Law Assignment discusses the potential plaintiffs in a case of negligence. It explains the elements of negligence and provides relevant case laws. The article also discusses the liability of Sam in the given scenario.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
Business Law Assignment 2018
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
QUESTION I: ISSUE Key issue: Who are the potential plaintiffs in the case for whose losses Sam is liable for? L: LAW A party who suffered any loss due to the negligence of another party can hold him liable for his/her damages and claim for compensation under the tort of negligence. Certain elements must be fulfilled in order to claim damages based on negligence of a party. Firstly, the party against whom a suit for negligence is filed must have a duty of care to maintain a standard of care (Barker et al, 2012). The party who did not have a duty of care cannot be held liable for negligent action. Furthermore, such duty must be breached by the defendant due to failure to maintain a standard of care. Lastly, due to such failure, a party must suffer a loss which is not too remote and caused due to the actions of the defendant. In order to understand these elements,Donoghue v Stevenson(1932) AC 562 case can be evaluated. In this case, the court provided an important judgement which provides provisions regarding the implementation of the principle of negligence. The claimant, in this case, suffered a personal injury due to the negligence of the defendant (CSU LAW504 Modules, 2018, Topic 3). Due to failure to maintain a standard of care by the defendant, the drink of the claimant included remains of a snail. The claimant demanded damages for the personal injury suffered by him. The court provided a leading judgement in which it was held that the defendant had a duty of care towards the safety of its customers. Such duty was breached which caused damages to the claimant. Furthermore, the damages were not too remote and caused directly due to the action of the defendant, thus, a suit for negligence was valid. Section 5B (1) of theCivil Liability Act2002 (NSW) provided the provision regarding foreseeability of the risk based on which the party is required to take necessary steps in order to prevent such harm. Section 5B (2) of the act provides various provisions regarding identifying whether the party breached a duty (CSU LAW504 Modules, 2018, Topic 3). It
provides four principles to evaluate whether a duty of care has been breached which include: Likelihood of occurring of any injury Seriousness of the injury which might occur due to breach of duty Social utility Efforts and cost required to prevent such injury The first element is discussed in the case ofBolton v Stone(1951) AC 850 in which a cricket ball hit the plaintiff which caused him personal injury. The court provided that in the previous 30 years no injury has occurred near the area and the chance of risk was low. Thus, a suit for negligence cannot be applied in this case. InParis v Stepney Borough Council (1951) AC 367 case, the court provided provision regarding the seriousness of the harm. In this case, the court provided that the chances that an eye of the employee can be lost are a reasonable ground for the employer to take appropriate steps to prevent such risk (Butler, 2018). Denning L.J. provided in the case ofLatimer v AEC Ltd(1953) AC 643 that in order to protect him the defendant must prove that reasonable steps were taken by him to prevent the risk. Causation of the damages is another element of negligence which provides that the actions of the defendant must be the direct cause of the injury suffered by the plaintiff as given in section 5D (1). In order to evaluate the causation, the court provided ‘but for’ test in the case ofCork v Kirby Maclean(1952) 2 ALL ER 402 (Montague, 2013). The test evaluates that the injury suffered by the plaintiff would not have occurred, but for the action of the defendant, he suffered substantial loss. Remoteness of damages is also necessary to be evaluated by the court since compensation cannot be awarded for the damages which are too remote as given in the case ofOverseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd(1961) AC 388. One of the main defences against a suit of negligence is ‘voluntary assumption of risk’ (CSU LAW504 Modules, 2018, Topic 4). It provides that the party who understands and accepts the risk cannot rely on the suit of negligence to claim for damages. A: APPLICATION Sam was responsible for filling right fuel into the aircraft based on which he owed a duty of care. As the accident reports showed, the accident of White Ltd’s aircraft was caused due to
the contaminated fuel put by Sam into the plane, thus, White Ltd can hold him liable for his negligence. The loss suffered by the owner of Mercedes Benz was too remote based on which Sam cannot be held liable to pay for his damages. Sam prevented the accident of Blue Ltd’s aircraft by stopping the pilot from flying it based on which he is not liable towards Blue Ltd. The damages suffered by the customer of Blue Ltd were too remote based on which a suit for negligence against Sam cannot be filed. Lastly, the pilot of Green Ltd rejected all the warning signs of Sam, and he still flies the plane which has resulted in an accident. Thus, Sam can rely on the defence of voluntary assumption of risk to prevent the liability from paying the compensation for the loss suffered by Green Ltd. C: CONCLUSION To conclude, White Ltd is the only potential plaintiff that can file a suit against Sam for the loss suffered by him due to the negligence of Sam.
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
BIBLIOGRAPHY Legislation Civil Liability Act2002 (NSW) Cases Bolton v Stone(1951) AC 850 Cork v Kirby Maclean(1952) 2 ALL ER 402 Donoghue v Stevenson(1932) AC 562 Latimer v AEC Ltd(1953) AC 643 Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd(1961) AC 388 Paris v Stepney Borough Council(1951) AC 367 Books/Articles/On-line Modules Barker, K, Cane, P, Lunney, M and Trindade, F (2012).The law of torts in Austraila.Oxford: Oxford University Press. Butler, D (2010).Employer liability for workplace Trauma, Abingdon: Routledge. CSU LAW504 Modules Montague, JE (2013).Q&A Torts 2013-2014,Abingdon: Routledge.