BUS107 Corporation Law Assignment: Tort of Negligence
Added on 2020-05-28
6 Pages1378 Words117 Views
Corporation Law1Corporation Law(Student Details: )
Corporation LawIntroduction Tort law is a branch of common law, and denote civil wrong done. One of the torts in the nationis negligence. Negligence occurs where an owed duty of care is contravened, owing to the actsundertaken by the duty owing person, which causes the other person’s injuries, or losses. When acase of negligence is made, often the defence of contributory negligence is cited (Latimer, 2012).This part covers an analysis of the given case study, in context of the two concepts. I: IssueThe main issue in this case is the chances of a case of negligence, raised by Tamara against AldiSupermarkets (Aldi), being successful. R: RuleNegligence is the tort through which the person breaching the duty of undertaking reasonablecare is made liable, for not taking the care as a reasonable person would have undertaken insimilar situations, particularly when the result in harm/ loss/ injury was being caused to the partyto which this duty was owed. Establishing negligence is a step based process, where there is aneed to show the duty of care being present, its violation, the violation causing injury, loss notbeing remote, foreseeability of loss and direct causation. In cases where these are shown to bepresent, monetary compensation can be claimed upon by the aggrieved party (Gibson and Fraser,2014).To begin with, there is a need to establish the presence of duty of care. In this regard, thethreefold test provided in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, 618 proves to be of2
Corporation Lawassistance. As per this test, there is a need to show reasonable foreseeability of the injury throughthe defendant’s conduct or actions; there is also a need for the defendant and plaintiff to have arelationship of proximity; and finally, the imposition of penalty has to be deemed as fair, just andalso reasonable based on the scenario present (Lunney and Oliphant, 2013). Bolton v. Stone[1951] AC 850, [1951] 1 All ER 1078 was a case in which the plaintiff was not awarded withany sort of damages, owing to the lack of holding the defendant as liable for negligence, as therewas absence of reasonable foreseeability in the conduct of the plaintiff (Swarb, 2016). This has to be followed by showing that the owed duty of care had been contravened (Harveyand Martson, 2009). Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367 was a case in which thedefendant was aware of the fact that the plaintiff was blind in one eye. Despite this, he was notgiven the safety gears to be worn whilst be performed his work. One of the days he was working,a rusty bolt hit his good eye, blinding him completely. This was deemed as breach of duty of careresulting in the defendant being deemed negligent (Martin and Lancer, 2013). The loss causedhas to be significant and not too remote. Upon the presence of all these, negligence can beupheld (Latimer, 2012).A common defence citied in cases of negligence is contributory negligence. As per this concept,the injured party has to be made liable for the contribution made by them in the injuries whichthey suffered, predominantly through the negligence of the defendant. Thus, the amount ofdamages given to the plaintiff for their loss is brought down by their contributory negligence,and is entirely based on discretion of court (Dongen, 2014). Hamilton v Duncan [2010] NSWDC90 is an example of this concept. This case had the plaintiff failing in maintaining proper look-out for hole, and this was done when the plaintiff had the knowledge of the hold, on which theplaintiff had tripped. There had been warnings by him to other person regarding the same; and3
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Assignment on Commercial Lawslg...
|6
|1395
|79
Case Study Analysislg...
|7
|1723
|270
LW651- The Australian Consumer Law - MacTools Ltd Tort Lawlg...
|6
|1332
|82
HI6027 - Business and Corporation Lawlg...
|6
|1493
|82
Commercial Law - volenti non fit injurialg...
|6
|1337
|343
NEGLIGENCE Page 7 of 11 qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuioplg...
|11
|2440
|361