Business Law: Breach of Civil Liability and Contractual Obligations

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

1BUSINESS LAW
Question 1:
Scenario A:
Issue:
The issues in this case are that-
 Whether Maria can claim damages for breach of civil liability against Amelia.
 Whether Nathaniel can sue Dan for negligence.
Law:
According to Section 9 of the Civil Liability Act 2003, a breach of duty to take
precautions is not ignored by an individual if the nature of the risk can be foreseeable by any
reasonable person. In this regard, Section 9 states that if the person had knowledge regarding the
nature of the harm then he would have taken proper care and precautions on his part. It was
observed in Dick Bentley Productions v Harold Smith Motors [1965] 1 WLR 623 that during
the pre-contract stage, one of the parties to the contract was aware of the consequences however;
it was not informed to the other party. Section 11 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 deals the
decisions regarding contravention of duties. According to Section 11, if a breach of duty is
caused on the part of an individual as a result of injury or factual causation then such individual
is liable for the harm caused to the other person which was held in Waverley Municipal Council
with Swain (2003) NSW CA61. According to the provisions of Section 12, the onus of proof lies
with the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is at the obligation to identify the nature of the harm
and verify it with the existing reality of that causation. The provisions of Section 14 deals with
individuals suffering harm who are presumed to have knowledge regarding the nature of the risk.

2BUSINESS LAW
In this regard, it is worth noting that in case if there is an action violating the duty of injury, then
it is important on the part of the defendant to prevent the harm from causing. In some cases, the
plaintiff may not have knowledge regarding the nature of the risk however; it is important that he
must prove it. It was held Asiansky Television plc and another v Bayer-Rosin (A Firm) [2001]
EWCA Civ 1792 that the plaintiff was not aware of the nature of the risk however; he took
measurable grounds to prove that the nature of the risk was such to cause harm. The provisions
of Section 15 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 states there is no proactive duty to inform about the
nature of the obvious risk. The provisions of Section 15 states that if an individual do not warn
the other party about the obvious risk and the nature of the harm then it can cause serious injury
to the victim. It was held by the Court in Jaenke v Hinton (1995) QCA 484 that if the nature of
the accident was caused as a result of an obvious risk, then the claim for damages shall fail
because the nature of the risk proved to be so obvious that it no longer can be treated as a threat.
However, it shall not apply to cases if the personal injury is caused on the part of a professional
and that the petitioner is an expert which was held in Woolworths Ltd v Lawlor [2004] NSWCA
209. Section 17 of the Act is applicable in cases related to liabilities in negligence causing
serious harm to persons caused as a result of dangerous recreational activities. However, it is
important on the part of the plaintiff to be engaged in such recreational activities. Section 18
defines the meaning of the dangerous recreational activity. According to the provisions of
Section 18, dangerous recreational activity can be defined as an activity in which the individuals
engage for the purpose of enjoyment and relaxation however; such activity causes serious risk or
considerable physical harm to the person involved. Section 19 states that an individual is not
liable for negligence in cases which involves harm suffered by a person resulting from obvious
risk of a dangerous recreational activity engaged in by the sufferer. In Campbell v Hay (2014)