Rights of Consumers in Bringing an Action for Negligence under Law of Torts and Australian Consumer Law

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

1BUSINESS LAW
Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................2
Approach to question 1..............................................................................................................2
Approach to question 2..............................................................................................................5
Bibliography...............................................................................................................................9

2BUSINESS LAW
Introduction
The Law of Tort under common law and the Australian Consumer Law as a statutory
legislation both strives to protect the people from the deception of the manufacturers which
may go to such extent as to hurt the people physically or by causing them a severe financial
loss1. In this paper, a consumer, who is a newborn baby, suffered from a mental injury from a
collapsed baby cot, seeks consumer right through his mother who had also sustained mental
injury seeing her poor child trapped under the collapsed cot. It is to be determined in this
paper as to the rights that Priya and Rahul, the parents of the newborn, has in bringing an
action for negligence under law of torts as well as under Australian Consumer Law2.
Approach to question 1
Issue
To determine the rights of Priya and Rahul to sue for tort in negligence.
Rule
Under law of tort, negligence refers to the failure to carry out responsibility by a
person towards another. To establish negligence it must be proved that the defendant had a
duty of care towards the plaintiff which he has breached. The essential elements of
negligence was discussed in the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson, where it was held
that the defendant had a duty of care towards the plaintiff, which has been breached,
causing a damage or injury to the plaintiff; however such risk of injury was foreseeable by
the defendant who has a proximate relationship with the plaintiff and his position gives him
the advantage over the plaintiff3. Lastly it was discussed in another landmark case that all of
1 Miller, Christopher J., Brian W. Harvey, and Deborah L. Parry. Consumer and trading law: text, cases and
materials (Oxford University Press, 1998)
2 Trading, Fair. "Australian Competition and Consumer Commission." (2002)
3 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562.