Liability of Baby's R Us under Law of Tort and ACL

Contents
Answer.............................................................................................................................................2
Issue 1..........................................................................................................................................2
Law...............................................................................................................................................2
Application of Law to Facts.........................................................................................................3
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................3
Issue 2..............................................................................................................................................4
Law...............................................................................................................................................4
Application of Law to the facts of case........................................................................................4
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................5
Reference List..................................................................................................................................6

Answer
Issue 1
Whether Baby’s R Us is liable to Rahul and Priya under the law of tort?
Law
The law of tort is designed to compensate the victim who suffers from loss due to uncareful act
of the performer of the act. Law of tort is a wider concept and the law of negligence is part of
law of tort which thus makes the loss of the sufferer good by compensating him if the loss
suffered by the sufferer is due to the careless act of the doer of the act.
A person can be held liable under the law of negligence when the below stated elements are
satisfied:
 Duty of care is established upon the performer of the act
 The said duty of care is breached by the performer of the act
 Loss is suffered by the third party due to such breach of the performer of the act
The case law which thus widened the scope of law of negligence is Donoghue
v. Stevenson [1932] as in this case law it was established that the performer of the act who
performs act negligently is liable to any third person who is his neighbor and this neighbor can
be anybody who is likely to be affected from the acts of the performer of the act.
Duty of care
Duty of care is established upon the wrongdoer when the act performed by him is likely to injure
his neighbor and duty can be casted upon the wrongdoer when the person who is likely to be
injured is in proximity with the wrongdoer the same is also stated in the case law of Esanda
Finance Corporation Ltd v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1997).
Moreover the injured must be reasonably foreseeable to the wrongdoer then the duty of acre can
be established upon him the same is also stated in the case law of Mutual Life and Citizens
Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt (1968).
Breach of Duty of care
A duty is said to be breached when care of appropriate level is not taken by the wrongdoer while
performing his actions as the performer as per law of negligence is expected to take reasonable
level of care as per the circumstances in order to protect any third person from loss by his
actions. A level of care in one situation be adequate but same level of care in another situation
may not be adequate. If wrongdoer does not take appropriate care then he is said to had
breached the duty of care as stated in case laws of Bolton v Stone[1951] and Roads and Traffic
Authority of NSW v Refrigerated Roadways Pty Limited [2009].

Resultant Damage
There must be resultant damage due to the breach of duty on the part of the wrongdoer the cause
of damage should be the breach on the part of the wrongdoer if the damage accrue but not due to
the act of the wrongdoer or the damage caused is too remote and cannot be predicted by a
reasonable person then in such case for such damage to the third party the wrongdoer will not be
liable under the law of negligence the same is held in Overseas Tankship (UK) v Miller SS Co
Pty Ltd, The Wagon Mound (No 2)[1967].
Application of Law to Facts
Priya and Rahul went to store named Baby’s R Us for buying a baby cot. The salesman as per
Rahul specifications regarding needing a travelling cot on salesman recommendation bought
“Lullaby Wonder” as it was easy to assemble and disassembled and portable to carry.
In instant case duty of care is established upon the salesman as he knew that the cot was
purchased by couple for their baby and they need a travel purpose cot, moreover the couple and
the baby were his neighbors and in proximity with him and the child is reasonably foreseeable by
the salesman hence the duty of care is established upon him.
But the said cot collapsed during the holiday and baby was trapped inside.
As the cot collapsed hence the duty had been breached by the salesman as he was under duty to
provide the proper cot as per the needs of the couple as he knew that the same will be used for
baby during travelling purposes. Hence the duty of care is breached.
Due to the collapsing of cot the baby was injured and Priya also suffered from shock due to said
incident.
In the instant case the damage caused to the baby is under the law of negligence as the loss
caused to the baby is reasonably foreseeable and there is proximity between the act and the
damage caused hence Baby’s R Us will be liable in this case but in case of damage to Priya the
same is too remote hence the Baby’s R Us will not be liable in that case as the damage caused to
Priya cannot be predicted by a prudent person.
Conclusion
Hence Baby’s R Us will be liable for the loss caused to child but not for the loss caused to Priya.