University Law Assignment: Corporation & Enterprise Law Case Analysis

This document presents a detailed case study on corporation and enterprise law, focusing on issues of negligence, duty of care, and professional liability. The analysis examines two scenarios: the first involves a trainer and a surgeon, exploring claims of negligence, and psychiatric injury. The second scenario assesses professional negligence and breach of contract. The assignment applies legal principles from cases like Donoghue v Stevenson, Caparo Industries plc v Dickman, and Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire to determine potential liabilities and outcomes. The document also addresses the criteria for establishing negligence, including duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and remoteness of damage. Furthermore, the analysis differentiates between primary and secondary victims in cases of psychiatric injury and evaluates the application of the Caparo test and objective tests in assessing professional negligence. The conclusion summarizes the findings regarding the defendants' liability and their responsibilities towards the plaintiffs.

Running Head: CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW
Corporation & Enterprise Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note

1CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW
Table of Contents
Answer 1:.........................................................................................................................................2
Answer 2:.........................................................................................................................................6
Conclusion:..................................................................................................................................7
References........................................................................................................................................8

2CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW
Answer 1:
Issues:
The matter of disputes that lies within this case study that against whom Lauren and
Jeremy can institute a case for damage and if they sue, is there any chance of them being
successful in the civil court.
Rules:
The negligence tort is concerned with causing harm due to lack of potential care towards
a particular person or property. There is a need for basic ethics, such that one subject would have
a concern towards the other subject. The primary principle is that an individual should have a
reasonable care and concern towards another by considering the potential harm that can be
inflicted to others (Goldberget al., 2015).
The traditional negligence law is elaborated within the Donoghue v Stevenson[1932] AC
563 case. For the sole purpose of being successful in the act of claiming negligence, the claimant
must prove the availability of this set of criteria.
 Firstly, there exists a set of specific duty for the defendant.
 Second, the defendant on the other hand has breached duty of care.
 Thirdly, the resulting negative outcome is a resulting effect of this very act.
 The loss or damage is not remote.
Hence, for the sole purpose of proving negligence, the claimant has to depict out that the
defendant has a particular set of duty towards him. In any case of negligence, the sole motive of
the defendant is to prove the absence of any of the above mentioned conditions to have success

3CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW
in the case such that the defendant fails to carry out any particular duty or activity that has been
recognised by law, to the claimant as laid in Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605.
However, taking into concern this case particular case, for the purpose to show that
Pabalo has a set of responsibility to perform towards the plaintiff, the Caparo test must be
applied. Lord Bridge, in this test held that in addition to the existence of foresight of damage,
another important criterion is that a proximity or neighbourhood relation lies between the
plaintiff and defendant (Okrent et al., 2014). The situation, moreover in such cases should be fair
and transparent.
The second condition relies on the fact that there should be a duty breach which will be
result out the defendant which is highlighted within the Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3, Bing.
N.C. 467 case. To depict that there is a infringement of duty, the plaintiff must state as such that
the defendant has failed to undertake any care and precautions in order to eliminate the
occurrence of such event.
The third criterion relies on the fact that the concerning damage is a result of the breach
of duty which is caused by the defendant. It had been laid in the Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington
Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428 case. Causation of the damage is a calculated with the application of
the ‘but for’ test as discussed in the case referred above (Sperino et al 2014).
The final factor to justify the tort of negligence lies within the remoteness of the negative
effect (damage) that is found within case of Wagon Mound no 1 [1961] AC 388. However,
according to this particular case, the defendant is sole responsible for the loss. On the other
contrary, if the loss is not about to be predicted, then the defendant will not be addressed as liable

4CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW
for the entire loss that has been incurred, despite of the fact that the loss incurred was more than
it has been expected.
Another factor for the tort law is psychiatric injury. This law of tort is assumed to be very
serious. Making use of the Caparo test, civil court has introduced some other alternative form of
tests that are required to be fulfilled by claimants. This is very important to address and prove the
accountability of defendant. Moreover, there is a requirement of the psychiatric injury in reality
as considered within the Behrens & Ors v Bertram Mills Circus Ltd. [1957] 2 QB 1 case.
As per the law of negligence, there exist two distinct categories of victims, the primary
victims and the secondary victims, who have a chance of getting affected because of the
negligence. The primary victims are those who actually took part in the form of the participant
that resulted in the damage, as gibven within Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire case
(Velascoet al 2014). Now, there lie secondary victims; who actually do not take part in the actual
act however they visualise it.
The secondary victims have to fulfil four criteria to formulate and bring out the
responsibility. Such criteria are well elaborated within the case of Alcock case. The criteria are
presence of love plus affection, close vicinity of the act itself, visualising the incident in total
senses and such psychiatric injury is an outcome of the terrifying event.
Application:
Within this very present case, plaintiff can institute a civil case of negligence against
Pablo along with the surgeon for his negligence act. However, to be successful and win the case
against trainer Pablo, he must prove the four essential aspects of the negligence which are
discussed below.

5CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW
Firstly, there lies a duty to take care of him by Pablo. Pablo, who was his trainer, has a
responsibility to ensure protection towards Jeremy as he was acting under Pablo’s guidance and
training.
Secondly, the Pablo has resulted the infringement of the duty of care. The trainer, Pablo
didn’t make use of the safety when Jeremy was doing performance. This is a fact which resulted
the fall of Jeremy. This incident led Jeremy to suffer a lot such that Jeremy even had serious
injuries in his knees and fractured his ribs.
Thirdly, the plaintiff Jeremy fell while riding on the back of the elephant as preventive
measure in order to avoid his falling was not taken. Hence, taking into account the occurrence of
this specific case it seems that Jeremy has suffered as a result of failure to perform duty by the
Pablo.
Finally, Jeremy’s injury can be apprehended and foreseen as he was doing dangerous
actions for which adequate safety measure has to be ensured. Thus, the plaintiff Jeremy can be
successful in this case against the trainer. Similarly, he could succeed against the surgeon,
because all the elements of negligence are also present here. Due to careless act of a doctor, he
cannot be able to walk. Thus Jeremy could sue the doctor also successfully.
Lawren, on the other hand, saw the incident. He saw the major cause for which she went
through an incident of shock and also developed the psychiatric illness. He has the right to sue
against Pablo for the cause of psychiatric ailment. She was considered to be secondary victim.
All the conditions as outlaid within the Alcock case were present therein. Hence she could
succeed against Pablo.

6CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW
Answer 2:
Issues:
Speaking in regard to this specific case the issue is in regard to the fact that whether Dr.
Polyandry has a duty to take care to Rubicon.
Rules:
The professional negligence is a component of the law of negligence; in this aspect the
situation is that the defendant has brought himself as a person of certain professional skills and
abilities. It is a duty of care that the professional person has in regard to his client.
However, to prove the breach of duty, the claimant should prove the fact that the
defendant had not been able to meet the standard of care as outlaid by the law (Henderson et al.
2017). The defendant has a certain level of duty of care in regard to the claimant. When he failed
to perform it, breach of duty is caused. To prove the duty breach, the objective test is generally
done as is given in the Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 467 case.
However, while executing the objective test, the court mainly undertakes four different
factors, as such, which are as follows:
 The first one stands for the likelihood of the harm; in this scenario the plaintiff should not
expect any care from the defendant in situations which are not foreseeable. This, was
observed as of in the Roe v Minister of Health [1954] 2 WLR 915 case.
 The second criteria is the seriousness of violence as given in the Wagon Mound No. 2 [1967]
1 AC 617 case.

7CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW
 The other factors are the cost of prevention held in Latimer v AEC [1953] AC 643 and utility
of the conduct of the defendant as observed in Watt v Hertfordshire [1954] 1 WLR 835. In
this regard, the Anns test and Caparo test can be used too.
Application:
Taking into consideration the present scenario of the case, in order to sue against
Polyndar, there is a requirement for Rubicon to justify that there takes place a professional
breach of contract. This breach of contract is by Polyndar to Rubicon. This is to be justified by
making utilisation of the objective test.
Firstly, there is a need for Rubicon Ltd. to prove that Polynder has a standard of care and
concern towards it. Then secondly, it must depict out that Polyndar is liable for the infringement
of taking care towards it, and thirdly, it has to bring out that he has suffered loss due to the
breach of taking proper care.
In the given case, the doctor has performed his duty. He had suggested his client to
employ a specialist firm. Orion ltd, his client has retracted from the contract. There was no
existence of contract of Rubicon with Polyndar. Thus, as Rubicon was a third party, he cannot
successfully sue Polyndar as he has no liability to it.
Conclusion:
Thus, it is to be held that Dr Polyndar has a lack of concern or duty towards the subject
Rubicon.

8CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW
References
Fraser, G.R., 2016. Landscape Professional Practice. Routledge.
Goldberg, J.C. and Zipursky, B.C., 2015. The Supreme Court's Stealth Retrun to the Common
Law of Torts. DePaul L. Rev., 65, p.433.
Henderson, J.A., Kysar, D.A. and Pearson, R.N., 2017. The torts process. Wolters Kluwer Law
& Business.
Luntz, H., Hambly, D., Burns, K., Dietrich, J., Foster, N., Grant, G. and Harder, S., 2017. Torts:
cases and commentary. LexisNexis Butterworths.
Okrent, C., 2014. Torts and personal injury law. Nelson Education.
Pattenden, R. and Sheehan, D., 2016. The law of professional-client confidentiality. Oxford
University Press.
Price, Z.S., 2014. Enforcement discretion and executive duty. Vand. L. Rev., 67, p.671.
Rauterberg, G. and Talley, E., 2017. Contracting out of the fiduciary duty of loyalty: An
empirical analysis of corporate opportunity waivers. Colum. L. Rev., 117, p.1075.
Spamann, H., 2016. Monetary Liability for Breach of the Duty of Care?.Journal of Legal
Analysis, 8(2), pp.337-373.
Sperino, S.F., 2014. The Tort Label. Fla. L. Rev., 66, p.1051.
Velasco, J., 2014. A Defense of the Corporate Law Duty of Care. J. Corp. L., 40, p.647.
Zipursky, B.C., 2014. Reasonableness in and out of Negligence Law. U. Pa. L. Rev., 163,
p.2131.