Case Study Assignment

Running head: CASE STUDY ASSIGNMENT
CASE STUDY ASSIGNMENT
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1CASE STUDY ASSIGNMENT
Answer 1:
Issue:
The issue involved in this case is whether officer- in- charge breached his duty of care
while placing the jack in a vehicle not specially designed to carry it.
Law/Rules:
In order to identify and determine whether a person has breached his duty of care, the
court generally considers the standard of care expected by a reasonable person in such
circumstances (Gibson, 2017). The standard of care means the care to be taken or not to be taken
by a person of reasonable knowledge, judgment and skill in that particular similar situation.
When the defendant in the particular case has performed his task or duty in an unreasonable
manner or his acts were not according to the standard of a reasonable man, then it is said that he
has breached his duty of care. However, before going further, it has to be proved that the
defendant has a duty of care which he has breached. The presence of duty of care has to be
determined by the neighbourhood test in reference of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562.
This test consists of reasonable foreseeability of harm and presence of relation of proximity. The
harm or injury inflicted has to be such that it can be foreseen reasonably by any person and there
must be proximate relation between the cause and effect of the harm.
Once it is proved, that the defendant in the case has a duty of care to the claimant or
plaintiff, the claimant must show that the defendant is liable for breach of duty as seen in the
case of McHale v Watson [1966] HCA 13. The breach of duty is generally determined by the
objective test as observed in the case of Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [1980] HCA 12. This test

2CASE STUDY ASSIGNMENT
is used to determine the standard possessed by a reasonable person as found in Vaughan v
Menlove [1837] 3 Bing NC 467.
While deciding whether has performed his duty as a reasonable person or has breached
his duty, the court usually considers four aspects mainly; the likelihood of harm, the seriousness
of harm, the cost of prevention and the usefulness of the conduct of the defendant.
The first aspect as mentioned above is likelihood of the harm caused. The defendant may
not give protection against any unforeseen events. It is expected from the defendants to guard
against the events that can be reasonably foreseen. This type of observation was made in Roe v
Minister of Health [1954] 2 WLR 915 by the Court of Appeal where the defendants were not
held liable as the risk was not reasonably foreseen.
The second aspect is seriousness of harm as discussed in the case of The Wagon Mound
No.2 [1967] 1 AC 617 by the Privy Council. In this case, the defendants have breached the duty
of care. Here in this case, though the likelihood of harm was low, however, the seriousness of the
harm was very high and no cost could be incurred to stop it from happening.
The third aspect to be considered in this regard is the cost of prevention. It is recognized
in the case of Latimer v AEC [1953] AC 643. In this case, the House of Lords held that the
defendants are obliged to take only reasonable precautions to reduce or eliminate the risk by
taking standard care. The defendant is not required to undergo any additional expenses to remove
the possible danger.
The final criterion looked upon by the court is the usefulness of the conduct of the
defendant. It was observed in the case of Watt v Hertfordshire [1954] 1 WLR 835, it was held
that no breach of duty was committed by the defendant. The reason cited by the court is that the