Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills.pdf

By (Name)
The Name of the Class (Course)
Professor (Tutor)
The Name of the School (University)
The City and State
The Date

Introduction
It is well settled principle in law that in a negligence action the burden of proving the claim rests
is on the plaintiff or the claimant in the case (Boehm, 2003). The court in Grant v Australian
Knitting Mills (1936) averred that in a negligence claim it is incumbent upon the
plaintiff/claimant to prove three key elements. These are;
a) The defendant owed him duty of care
b) The defendant has Breach the said duty
c) Causation (A causal relationship between the defendant’s actions and the consequences)
d) The plaintiff has been injured, suffered loss or damage
It is instructive to note that the parents of the children who drowned and those that were injured
will be the claimant/ plaintiffs while the shipbuilders, Captain Hawkeye and First Mate will be
the defendants. Therefore, the parents of the children as the plaintiffs suing on behalf of their
children will bear the burden of proving the elements of negligence against each defendant.
Duty of Care
Typically, the claimant has to show that the defendant in question owed him a duty of care. The
concept of duty of care was espoused by Lord Artkin in the landmark ruling of Donoghue v.
Stevenson (1932) when he brought to force the neighbor principle. Lord Artkin averred that
individuals should always have their neighbors in contemplation when doing something (Keenan,
2004). He defined a neighbor as any individual who may be harmed, injured or suffer loss
though one’s actions or omissions. He therefore noted that an individual owes his neighbor(s) a
duty of care. The plaintiff must therefore proof that he is a neighbor within the meaning of Lord
Aitkin’s neighbor principle and that the defendant in question owed him a duty of care. At the
onset it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that a reasonable foreseeable risk of harm
existed in the prevailing circumstances (Kings v Philips, 1952). In addition, there must be an
identifiable reasonable degree of proximity manifested in relationship between the plaintiff and
the defendant (Home Office v Dorset Yacht Club, 1970). In the end, the claimant bears the
burden evincing that it is just, fair and equitable to conclude and find that the defendant owe him
a duty of care.

The children who boarded the boat can be regarded as neighbors within the meaning of Lord
Aitkin’s neighbor principle. This stems from the fact the actions or omissions of the shipbuilders,
Captain Hawkeye and First Mate are likely to directly affect them. It can be argued that the
Shipbuilders, Captain Hawkeye and First Mate owe the children a duty of care. This is evidenced
by the fact that there was a reasonable risk that the children could drown or be injured if proper
care was not taken. In addition, there is an identifiable reasonable degree of proximity
manifested in relationship between the children and the Shipbuilders, Captain Hawkeye and First
Mate because the safety of the children is conditional on their actions. Due to the nature of the
service that Shipbuilders, Captain Hawkeye and First Mate render it can be argued that it is just,
fair and equitable to conclude that they owe the children a duty of care
Breach of Duty
It is well settled principle in English Law that an individual will beheld to be in breach of the
duty of care if his actions fall below the normal minimum standard that is expected for an
ordinary skilled person in similar circumstances (Keenan, 2004). According to the court in
Flynn v. O'Reilly (1999) the standard of care is that of an ordinary reasonable skilled person. The
test that the plaintiff will apply to advance the contention that the defendant breached the duty of
care he owed him is referred to as the reasonable man test. Therefore, the plaintiff’s imperative is
to prove that the defendant failed to act in a manner that a reasonable and ordinary person would
have acted and that the actions of the defendant fall below the standards that of a body of
professional opinion (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee, 1957). In the case of
Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953) took to the view that an individual will be held to have breached the
duty of care if he fails to foresee reasonable foreseeable risks that are likely to have devastating
consequences on others.
It is apparent that the Shipbuilders were aware of their duty of care towards Captain Hawkeye.
This is evidenced by the fact the previous day before the children board the boat that they had
Captain Hawkeye to take the boat for urgent repair. Ideally, the any ordinary reasonable ship
builder would have acted in the same way as a measure of promoting safety. In this case the ship
builders cannot be held to have breached the duty of care.