Business Laws Solution Assignment

Added on - 31 May 2021

  • 8


  • 1777


  • 3


  • 0


Trusted by +2 million users,
1000+ happy students everyday
Showing pages 1 to 3 of 8 pages
Running head: BUSINESS LAWSBusiness LawsName of the studentName of the universityAuthor note
1BUSINESS LAWSIssueWhether Norm can bring a claim for damages under the law of negligence with respect to theinjury caused to him against Yokohama Sushi bar.RuleThe contemporary law of negligence had been established viaDonoghue v Stevenson [1932]AC 562.A claim in relation to negligence would only succeed in the court of law if the plaintiffprovides that the defendant had towards them a “duty of care”, there was a breach of such duty,damages resulted out of the reach and the injury was not very remote.Duty of careThe type of injury which has been caused is to be considered to indentify the nature of test whichshould be applied to find out a duty of care. Injury in relation to property and personal injury isanalyzed by the application of“caparo test”.Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC605is the case where this test had been provided. In this case it had been stated by the court thatthere is no duty of care owed where there is any sufficient proximity between the plaintiff andthe defendant. The test analyzes reasonable forseeability of injury and proximity between theparties. Where the parties are within proximity and the injury can be foreseen then there is a dutyof care.Breach of dutyThe test which needs o ne applied to find out if the defendant is in contravention of the duty isobjective. The case ofCOLE V SOUTH TWEED RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUBLTD [2004] HCA 29discussed this test. The defendant is in contravention of the duty where
2BUSINESS LAWSthere is failure to meet the standards set out by law in relation to the care to be taken. Theobjective test signifies that there is requirement of meeting the standards of a reasonable person.However this test can be varied in certain situation such as it was done inCondon v Basi [1985]1 WLR 866where a amateur player cannot be adjudged according to the standards of aprofessional player.CausationThe general test for indentify causation in a situation is the “but for” test as derived from the caseofBarnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428. The harm must be a result ofthe breach of duty. The harm would not have taken placebut forbreach of duty for thedefendant.Remoteness of damages in negligenceIn the case ofRe Polemis & Furness Withy & Company ltd. [1921]3 KB 560the courtclarified that the not all injuries which the plaintiff has suffered can be compensated undernegligence. The loss which results out of the direct consequences of the injury would be allowedto be recovered. However this rule had been overruled by the remoteness test as provided by thecase ofThe Wagon Mound no 1 [1961] AC 388where damages which cannot be foreseen andare too remote cannot be recovered.ApplicationIn this case the Norm will be considered as a plaintiff and he has suffered the injury andYokohama Sushi Bar would be considered as a defendant as a claim is to be brought againstthem. The plaintiff will succeed in relation to the claim of he is able to provide that defendant
You’re reading a preview
Preview Documents

To View Complete Document

Click the button to download
Subscribe to our plans

Download This Document